La Mesa City Council
May 9, 2023

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-25 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
Emergency Access: Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Emergency access to all surrounding properties would be maintained throughout the construction period, ensuring adequate emergency access during construction. The project would construct improvements to Alvarado Road, which
would improve emergency access to the project site and
surrounding areas. Within the project site, access for
emergency vehicles would be provided along the proposed perimeter road, and fire lanes would be provided on site to accommodate emergency response vehicles such that
Alvarado Road would not be obstructed for public safety vehicle movement as well as local traffic both to the east and west in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

VISUAL RESOURCES
Scenic Vistas: Would the project have a
substantial effect on a scenic vista?
No scenic vistas or panoramic views identified by the City’s General Plan are located within the project vicinity, and the project site is not visible from any of them except for Mount Helix. However, the project would not adversely affect views from Mount Helix due to the distance from this scenic vista.

The project site is also not located within the Scenic
Preservation Overlay Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, or other identified visually sensitive areas. Additionally, the project site does not contain any features that would be part of a scenic vista, nor does it provide any expansive views of notable regional landforms. Further, the limited views of Cowles Mountain from the project site would be maintained.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-26 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
VISUAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Scenic Resources: Would the project substantially
damage scenic resources, including but not limited
to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
The project site is not visible from an officially designated state scenic highway, and therefore would not substantially damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. The project would result in the loss of 155 Mexican fan palms that are identified as a scenic resource, specifically a landmark in the City’s General Plan. However, the trees are not a unique or distinctive landmark, as palm trees are common in the region. Additionally, the project would create a scenic resource through the enhancement and restoration of Alvarado Creek as it traverses through the project site.

Overall, project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources or protected views and scenic
resources within a state scenic highway.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Visual Character and Quality: Would the project
substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point)? If the project is in an urbanized area,
conflict with an applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality.

The project would not result in a substantial change to existing landforms. The proposed development would be
consistent with the development patterns in the surrounding area, and would not introduce a new land use or new type of building form that does not currently exist in the immediate area. Although the project would be at a greater scale than surrounding development, the design and configuration of buildings and landscaping would reduce massing effects. The project site is located in an urbanized area that is identified as suitable for redevelopment with higher development
intensities. Additionally, the visual quality from public viewpoints would be increased based on the added visual interest and increased visual unity, vividness, and intactness.

Further, the project would be consistent with applicable scenic quality goals, objectives, and policies. For these reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-27 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
VISUAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Light and Glare: Would the project create new
source of substantial light and glare, which would
adversely affect day and nighttime views in the
area?
The net increase in nighttime lighting resulting from the project would not be considered substantial on a citywide or regional scale due to the urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area. Additionally, exterior lighting would adhere to the design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, and the project would not include large expanses of reflective material or surfaces such as glass or metal.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
significant impact related to new sources of light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views on the area.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-28 August 2022
Table ES-2

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Environmental Issue Geographic Scope of
Cumulative Analysis
Significance of
Cumulative Impact Project Contribution
Air Quality San Diego Air Basin Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable
Biological Resources La Mesa Subarea Habitat
Conservation
Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan study
area
Less than significant with
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3
Not cumulatively
considerable
Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources
City of La Mesa and
immediately surrounding
lands; San Diego region
Less than significant with
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1
Not cumulatively
considerable
Geology and Soils City of La Mesa and
immediately surrounding
lands
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Global Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Project site and adjacent
properties (hazardous
materials); AIA of
Montgomery-Gibbs
Executive Airport (airport
safety hazards); City of La
Mesa and immediately
surrounding areas
(emergency response and
evacuation plans)
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Hydrology and Water
Quality
San Diego Hydrologic Unit Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable
Land Use City of La Mesa Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable
Noise Area immediately
surrounding the project
site and roadways that
would be used by
resident vehicles
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Paleontological
Resources
Coastal plain of San Diego
County
Less than significant with
Mitigation Measure PAL-1
Not cumulatively
considerable
Public Facilities and
Services
City of La Mesa and
immediately surrounding
areas
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Public Utilities La Mesa region Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable
Transportation City of La Mesa and
immediate surrounding
areas
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable
Visual Resources Viewshed of the
proposed project
Less than significant Not cumulatively
considerable

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐1 August 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated discretionary actions (collectively referred to throughout this PEIR as the “project”) has been prepared on behalf of the City of La Mesa (City) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.).

This section provides a brief description of the project scope; the purpose, type, and intended uses of the PEIR; the Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies; the scope and content of the PEIR; an explanation of how the PEIR is organized; and an overview of the PEIR process. This PEIR contains an analysis of the project described in detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE
The project analyzed in this PEIR is a master development plan for a phased transit‐oriented development (TOD) and associated public improvements as outlined in the Specific Plan. The proposed Alvarado Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning document (i.e., specific plan) that provides the framework to guide project development within the Specific Plan area and contains site‐specific development regulations that further implement the City’s General Plan. A specific plan is a land use planning and regulatory tool authorized by the State to local governments as a means to implement the broad goals and policies of the local General Plan. A specific plan provides the link between the implementing policies of a General Plan and the more precise development plans for a defined area. A specific plan may cover a general set of objectives and broad policy issues within a community or subarea, or it can be tailored to a development plan for a defined neighborhood or site. The proposed Specific Plan covers the latter, in that it addresses a phased development plan on a specific property.

The Specific Plan area (project site) encompasses an approximately 12‐acre site along the south side of Alvarado Road generally between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in the western portion of the City. The project site is bound by the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west, the Green Line trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership to the east, and Alvarado Road and Interstate 8 (I‐8) to the north. The site is developed and currently contains a recreational vehicle (RV) resort facility with paved access roadways, RV spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, other ancillary buildings, and three billboards. Alvarado Creek traverses the property as it flows under Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of the site and continues southwesterly and westerly along the southern boundary of the western portion of the site. Figure 1‐1, Regional Location, depicts the general location of the project site within the region, and Figure 1‐2, Project Location, shows the boundary of the project site and vicinity.

In addition to adoption of the Specific Plan, the project also includes a rezone to establish an Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone and a Development Agreement to memorialize the project entitlements and the provisions for construction of proposed public improvements.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM EIR
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121, the purpose of this PEIR is to provide public agency decision‐makers and members of the public with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of the project, possible ways to minimize its significant effects, and reasonable

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐2 August 2022
alternatives that would reduce or avoid any identified significant effects. This PEIR is informational in nature and is intended for use by decision‐makers, Responsible or Trustee Agencies as defined under CEQA, other interested agencies or jurisdictions, and the general public. The PEIR includes mitigation measures which, when implemented, would lessen project impacts and provide the City, the Lead Agency as defined in Article 4 of the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15050 through 15051), with ways to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment, whenever feasible.

1.3 TYPE OF EIR
This document is a PEIR, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. A PEIR is prepared for a series of actions that are characterized as one large project and are related either:

1. Geographically;

2. Logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;

3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or

4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

Because the proposed project is comprised of a series of planned actions within the same project site and under the same regulatory process with similar environmental effects and mitigation strategies, a PEIR is appropriate.

1.4 INTENDED USES OF THE PEIR
As the proposed project entails a phased master development plan, full project implementation would require subsequent approval of development proposals for each parcel within the Specific Plan area (referred to as “later activity” in this PEIR) to carry out the land use plan and demonstrate compliance with policies presented in the Specific Plan. That is, development on each of the four parcels within the Specific Plan area and related site improvements would require review and approval of a Site Development Plan to implement the Specific Plan. Later activities within the Specific Plan area would be evaluated for compliance with Specific Plan regulations and guidelines.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a PEIR may serve as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for later activities or implementing actions associated with the project to the extent it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of those later activities. If, in examining later actions for development within the Specific Plan area, the City finds no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required other than those identified and/or required in this PEIR, the City can approve the activity as being within the scope covered by this PEIR and no new environmental documentation would be required.

Furthermore, this PEIR is also specifically intended to implement the intent of CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which provides a CEQA exemption for certain residential, commercial, and mixed‐use projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been prepared. Later activities or

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐3 August 2022
implementation actions may be able to rely on this exemption if it meets the following criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(b) and (c):
 The later activity is a residential or mixed‐use project, or has a floor area ratio of at least 0.75 on commercially zoned property;
 The later activity is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA);  The later activity is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified; and  The later activity is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board has accepted the determination that the sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy would achieve the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

The City will conduct a consistency review or other equivalent analysis for each later activity to determine if that later activity would meet the criteria for this CEQA exemption. If the analysis finds that the later activity meets these criteria, the City must further determine if any of the events specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would occur with respect to that later activity, including:
 Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
 Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
 New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR;
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to not be feasible would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or o Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐4 August 2022
Further environmental review would be conducted only if any of these conditions would occur as a result of the implementation of the later activity associated with the proposed project. If additional environmental analysis is required, it can be streamlined by tiering from this PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15153, 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15168 (e.g., through preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, or Supplemental or Subsequent EIR).

1.5 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES

1.5.1 Lead Agency
The City is the Lead Agency for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051. The Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City conducted a preliminary review of the project and determined that a PEIR was required. The analysis and findings in this document reflect the independent, impartial conclusions of the City.

1.5.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
State law requires that EIRs be reviewed by Responsible and Trustee Agencies. Responsible Agencies, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, are public agencies that may have discretionary approval authority for a project. Trustee Agencies are defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as state agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Implementation of the proposed project may require subsequent actions and/or consultation from Responsible or Trustee Agencies. A brief description of some of the primary Responsible or Trustee Agencies that may have an interest in the project is provided below.

1.5.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over development in or affecting the navigable waters of the United States, pursuant to two federal laws: the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889 and the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. A “navigable water” is generally defined by a blue line as plotted on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. Projects that include potential dredge or fill impacts to waters of the United States are subject to Section 404 of the CWA. Impacts to waters of the United States (defined as direct fill or indirect effects of fill) greater than one‐half acre require an individual permit. All permits issued by the USACE are subject to consultation and/or review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1.5.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Acting under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the USFWS is responsible for ensuring that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency (such as the USACE) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. Accordingly, the USFWS will provide input to the USACE as part of the CWA Section 404 process.

1.5.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish Wildlife (CDFW) has the authority to reach an agreement with an agency or private party proposing to alter the bed, banks, or floor of any watercourse/stream, pursuant

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐5 August 2022
to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW generally evaluates information gathered during the preparation of the environmental documentation and attempts to satisfy their permit concerns in these documents. Where state listed threatened or endangered species not covered by the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan occur on a project site, the CDFW would be responsible for the issuance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure the conservation, enhancement, protection, and restoration of state listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats.

1.5.2.4 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality through the CWA Section 401 certification process and oversees the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0109266. The RWQCB is responsible for permitting, compliance, and other activities to reduce pollutants in municipal, construction, and industrial storm water runoff, including overseeing the development and implementation of Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs) as required by the Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for the San Diego region, which includes the City, as well as ensuring that all other MS4 permit requirements are met.

1.5.2.5 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
The Specific Plan area is adjacent to the Green Line trolley corridor owned by the San Diego Metropolitan System (MTS). The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel and utilities that would encroach into adjacent property owned by MTS.

1.5.2.6 City of San Diego
A portion of the Alvarado Creek channel to the south of the Specific Plan area is located in the City of San Diego. The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel and utilities that would extend into the City of San Diego.

1.5.2.7 California Department of Transportation
I‐8 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages and maintains the right‐of‐way associated with I‐8. The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel and utilities that would extend into the Caltrans right‐of‐way.

1.6 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PEIR
The scope of analysis for this PEIR was determined by the City as a result of initial project review, as well as consideration of comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated on May 21, 2019, and a scoping meeting held on May 29, 2019 at the La Mesa Police Station located at 8085 University Avenue, La Mesa, California 91942. The PEIR addresses in detail potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas:

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐6 August 2022
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use
 Noise
 Paleontological Resources
 Public Services and Facilities
 Public Utilities
 Transportation
 Visual Resources
The project would not result in potentially significant impacts with respect to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Wildfire as described in Section 6.1, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this PEIR.

The NOP and scoping meeting notice, scoping meeting sign‐in sheet, and comment letters received in response to the NOP are contained in Appendix A of this PEIR. Verbal and written comments received during the scoping process have been taken into consideration during the preparation of this PEIR. An outline of the issues noted during the scoping process is contained in the Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved discussion in the Executive Summary section. The environmental conditions evaluated as the baseline in this PEIR are those that existed at the time the NOP was circulated as described in Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting.

The PEIR includes mandatory contents of EIRs as required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 through 15132. A cumulative impacts analysis is presented for each specific environmental issue area in Chapter 5.0, Cumulative Impacts. Chapter 6.0, Other Mandatory Discussion Areas, discusses potential growth‐inducing impacts, effects found not to be significant, and unavoidable significant environmental impacts/significant irreversible environmental changes. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, includes a discussion of alternatives that could avoid or reduce potentially significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the project.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE PEIR
As stated above, the content and format of this PEIR are in accordance with the most recent guidelines and amendments to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Technical studies have been summarized within individual environmental issue sections and have been included in the appendices to this PEIR.

This PEIR has been organized in the following manner:
 Executive Summary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15123) provides a summary of the PEIR analysis, a brief description of the project, and alternatives that would reduce or avoid significant impacts; and includes a summary table identifying significant impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and the significance of the impact after mitigation. A discussion of areas of controversy known to the City, including those issues identified by other agencies and the public is also provided.  Chapter 1.0, Introduction, provides a brief description of the project and an overview of the purpose and intended uses of the PEIR, as well as its scope, content, and format. It also provides a discussion of the CEQA environmental review process, including public involvement.  Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125), provides a description of the project’s regional and local setting, as well as existing physical characteristics within the

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐7 August 2022
Specific Plan area. The setting discussion also includes background information of the project site and identifies the relevant planning documents and existing land use designations for the Specific Plan area.
 Chapter 3.0, Project Description (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124), provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including project objectives, development components, building characteristics, public improvements, landscape plan, and grading and construction phasing for the project. In addition, a discussion of discretionary actions required for project implementation is included in this chapter.
 Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126), constitutes the main body of the PEIR and includes the detailed impact analyses for each environmental issue identified in the NOP as potentially resulting in significant environmental impacts (refer to Section 1.6 above). For each environmental issue, Chapter 4.0 includes a discussion of existing conditions, the regulatory framework, the thresholds identified for the determination of significant impact, and an evaluation of the impacts associated with implementation of the project. Where the impact analysis demonstrates the potential for the project to result in a significant impact on the environment, mitigation measures are provided that would avoid or reduce the significant impact. Where mitigation measures are required, a statement regarding the significance of the impact after mitigation is provided.  Chapter 5.0, Cumulative Impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130), provides a detailed discussion of the proposed project’s cumulative impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), a project’s impacts are “cumulatively considerable” when the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of other recently approved or pending projects in the area.
 Chapter 6.0, Other Mandatory Discussion Areas, includes a discussion of the effects found not to be significant, growth inducement, and unavoidable significant impacts/significant irreversible changes.
o Effects Found Not to Be Significant identifies the issues determined in the initial scoping and environmental review process to be not significant for the project, and briefly summarizes the basis for these determinations. For the proposed project, it was determined that environmental issues associated with agriculture and forestry resources, energy, mineral resources, population and housing, and wildfire would not be significant.
o Growth Inducement (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e)) evaluates the potential influence the project may have on economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing within the Specific Plan area, as well as in the region, either directly or indirectly.
o Unavoidable Significant Impacts/Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2(c) and 15126.2(d)) provides a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project as detailed in Chapter 4.0. This chapter also describes the potentially significant irreversible changes that may be expected and

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐8 August 2022
addresses the use of nonrenewable resources and energy use anticipated during implementation of the proposed project.
 Chapter 7.0, Alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6), provides a description and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project. This section addresses the mandatory “no project” alternative, as well as development alternatives that would potentially reduce or avoid the proposed project’s significant impacts.
 Chapter 8.0, References Cited, lists the reference materials cited in the PEIR.  Chapter 9.0, Individuals Consulted/List of Preparers (CEQA Guidelines Section 15129), identifies the individuals contacted during preparation of the PEIR and lists the individuals who contributed to the PEIR.

1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

1.8.1 Draft PEIR
The Draft PEIR and related technical studies are available for review by the public and public agencies for 45 days to provide comments “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204). The public review period will be from September 9, 2020 to October 26, 2020.

Comments on the Draft PEIR can be mailed to:

Kirt Coury
Project Planner, Community Development Department
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Or provided via email to [email protected].

The PEIR and all supporting technical studies and documents are available for review at the City of La Mesa, Community Development Department, 8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, 91942, as well as at the La Mesa Branch Library at 8074 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, 91942. An electronic copy of the PEIR and the technical analyses are posted on the City’s website at: https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1639/Alvarado‐ Specific‐Plan.

1.8.2 Final PEIR
Following the end of the public review period, the City, as lead agency, will provide written responses to comments received on the Draft PEIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Comments and responses will be considered in the review of the PEIR. Responses to the comments received during public review, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Findings of Fact, and (if required) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts identified in the PEIR as significant and unavoidable will be prepared and compiled as part of the PEIR finalization process. The culmination of this process is a

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐9 August 2022
public hearing where the City Council will determine whether to certify the Final PEIR, which includes the MMRP, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if required), as being complete and in compliance with CEQA. Subsequent to certification of the PEIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or portions of the project may use the PEIR to evaluate environmental effects of the project, as they pertain to the approval or denial of applicable permits.

1.0 Introduction
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 1‐10 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!"a$ ?¹
!"^$
?³
?¸
!"^$
WÌ
!"a$ ?¸
?¸
?t WÊ
?¦
?¦
%&s(
!"a$ !"^$
WÌ
WÎ
WÎ
?n
Ag Aä
?Ë
?p
!"^$ %&u(
%&s(
?Ë
Aä
?p
?¹
POWAY

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
VISTA

ESCONDIDO
OTAY

CHULA VISTA
SANTEE
SAN
MARCOS

ENCINITAS

EL CAJON

LA MESA

CORONADO NATIONAL
CITY

IMPERIAL
BEACH
LEMON
GROVE
SOLANA
BEACH

DEL MAR
SAN
DIEGO

CAMP PENDLETON
Lake
San Marcos
Lake
Hodges
Lake Wohlford
Lake Ramona
Lake Poway
Miramar Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Lake
Murray
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lake
Jennings
Otay
Reservoir
Pacific
Ocean
San Diego Bay
Santee
Lakes
Sutherland
Reservoir
Lake Henshaw
El Capitan Reservoir
Loveland Reservoir
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Barrett Lake

TIJUANA

UNITED STATES
MEXICO

DULZURA
JULIAN
RAMONA
WARNER

SPRINGS

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
!
Project Site
ALPINE
LA
JOLLA
?¹

FALLBROOK
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig1-1_Regional.mxd LAM-08 5/7/2020 -RK Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016) K
Alvarado Specific Plan
0 8 Miles

!(T
A l v a r a d o C r e e k
Keeney St
Benton Wy
Normandie Pl
Harbinson A v
Colony Dr
Oakland Rd
Mohawk St
Parks Av
Alvarado Rd
Lake Murray Bl
Melody Ln
Magruder St
Kiowa
Dr
Maryland Av
Saranac St
Mohawk St
Wellesley St
Troy Ln
71st St
72nd St
Baltimore Dr
Macquarie St
73rd St
Mary Fellows Av
Colorado Av
Parkway Dr
TroyTr Amherst St
Colony Rd
Mcrae Av
Seton Hall St
El Cajon Bl
Williams Av
Oregon
Av
Gues ms an Av
Jess ei Av
Marie Av
Saranac Av
Shasta Ln
Williamsburg Ln
Grable St
Lesa Rd
Baldrich St
Swarthmore St Thorne Dr
La Mesita Pl
Comanche Dr
70th St
§¨¦8
70th St Trolley Station
Figure 1-2
Site Location
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig1-2_Location.mxd LAM-08 5/12/2020 - RK Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2017) K
Alvarado Specific Plan
0 600 Feet
Project Site
Green Line Trolley
!(T Trolley Stop

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-1 August 2022

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This chapter provides a description of existing site conditions for the project. The existing setting addresses the project site and provides an overview of the local and regional environmental setting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of La Mesa (City) encompasses approximately nine square miles within the central portion of San Diego County and is situated approximately 14 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The City is bordered by the City of San Diego to the north and west, the City of Lemon Grove to the south, the City of El Cajon to the northeast, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County to the southeast. Two freeways transect the City: the I-8 alignment extends east/west and the State Route (SR) 125 alignment extends north/south. SR 94 extends in an east/west alignment and forms the southern boundary of the City. Two trolley corridors also traverse the City, including the MTS Green Line and Orange Line. The population of La Mesa is estimated at 61,261 people (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 2019c).

The project is located on an approximately 12-acre site along the south side of Alvarado Road generally between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in the City. The project site is bound by the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west, the Green Line trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership to the east, and Alvarado Road and I-8 to the north. The site is developed and currently contains a RV resort facility with paved access roadways, RV spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, other ancillary buildings, and three billboards. Alvarado Creek traverses the property as it flows under Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of the site and continues southwesterly and westerly along the southern boundary of the western portion of the site. Refer to Figures 1-1 and 1-2 for regional and site location of the project.

2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

2.2.1 Site History
The project site remained undeveloped until 1954 when a mobile home park was constructed by Chris Cosgrove, a pioneer builder and developer in San Diego County. The mobile home park, called the La Mesan, initially included 118 spaces on approximately eight acres, and was expanded to include 49 additional spaces over approximately four acres in subsequent years. By 1958, the property included 167 spaces on approximately 12 acres and was later expanded to 181 spaces. By 1990, the mobile home park was converted into an RV resort and all of the mobile homes were removed. The site has contained RV resort uses since 1990.

2.2.2 Existing Uses and Development
The project site comprises six parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 469-021-20 through 25) that encompass a total area of approximately 12 acres. All six parcels are developed and currently occupied by the San Diego RV Resort. The RV Resort contains 174 full-hookup RV spaces and serves a combination of short-term and extended stay visitors. The site is developed with a combination of paved surfaces and ornamental landscaping, including a stand of approximately 155 Mexican Fan Palm trees that are

2.0 Environmental Setting
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-2 August 2022
scattered throughout the project site. These trees are informally grouped, and most have reached a relatively uniform height of approximately 80 feet. Numerous RVs are parked within the paved areas and are grouped together along internal roadways. A combination of wrought iron and a wooden plank fence separate the site’s boundary from Alvarado Road. Low shrubs and street landscaping provide further separation between the site and the roadway. On-site structures include two one-story laundry/ bathroom buildings and a two-story office/apartment complex comprised of four buildings. All six existing buildings were constructed between 1954 and 1959.

Alvarado Creek enters the site at the intersection of Alvarado Road on the east and continues through the site, bisecting the property until it enters an underground storm drainage facility in the western portion of the site. Alvarado Creek is channelized as it enters into the project site from the northeast and flows through a box culvert underneath a bridge over Alvarado Road. Alvarado Creek consists of a trapezoidal channel with concrete-lined banks and a natural channel bottom aside from the concrete aprons near the Alvarado Road overcrossing and at the western end of the site. Much of the channel supports vegetation including native and non-native species at varying vegetative cover, and water regularly flows through this section of Alvarado Creek.

Three freeway-oriented billboard signs are located within the project site along the Alvarado Road frontage. One is located at the eastern boundary of the site and is a single-sided sign oriented for viewers traveling along eastbound I-8. The other two signs occur in the western portion of site and are double sided. Overhead utility lines also cross over portions of the site that connect to 15 utility poles located throughout the site.

2.2.3 Landform, Vegetation, Hydrological, and Geological Conditions The project site is relatively level with a slight topographical variation as it slopes downward from east to west to the degree of approximately 10 feet. Existing on-site elevations range from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 410 AMSL.

The project site supports five vegetation communities or land use types, including freshwater marsh, willow woodland, disturbed land, urban/developed land, and concrete channel. Freshwater marsh occurs along Alvarado Creek and is dominated by broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), southern bulrush (Scirpus californica), and Olney’s three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus). Willow woodland occurs along Alvarado Creek on the southwestern portion of the site and comprises patches of trees and saplings of black willow, red willow, and shrubs of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). The disturbed habitat occurs on a slope below a concrete wall associated with the MTS Green Line Trolley down to Alvarado Creek and along the eastern bank of the creek and supports a cover of ivy (Hedera helix), olive tree (Olea europa), fennel (Foeniculum vulagre), and non-native grasses. The majority of the site consists of an urban/developed land characterized by the RV resort with ornamental vegetation consisting of maintained non-native landscaped areas. The concrete channel includes portions of Alvarado Creek at the box culvert crossing at Alvarado Road, the box culvert inlet near the trolley station at the west end of the project site, and portions of the northern bank of the creek.

Much of the project site is located within the mapped 100-year floodplain and floodway associated with Alvarado Creek. The site is underlain by a thin layer of fill soils that is, in turn, underlain by cobble conglomerate formational materials of the Stadium Conglomerate. Stream deposits underlie the fill soils in the southern portion of the site.

2.0 Environmental Setting
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-3 August 2022

2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is surrounded by Alvarado Road and I-8 to the north, the double-track Green Line Trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership and motel to the east, and the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west of the site.

Other surrounding uses include residential neighborhoods composed of single-family homes and multi-story apartment complexes north of I-8 and south of the Green Line Trolley corridor. A motel (Motel 6) and the commercial fleet sales and service departments of the car dealership are located to the east. West of the trolley station is an automobile repair business in a single-story warehouse-type building and a two-story, multi-tenant office building. Grossmont Center is located approximately

1.25 miles to the northeast and Lake Murray is located approximately 0.75 mile to the north.

2.4 PLANNING CONTEXT
The following plans contain policies, goals, and objectives that are applicable to the proposed project. A detailed discussion of these plans is provided in Section 4.8, Land Use.

2.4.1 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan; SANDAG 2015) is an update of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the San Diego Region and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), combined into one document. The Regional Plan provides a blueprint for San Diego’s regional transportation system to effectively serve existing and projected workers and residents within the San Diego region. In addition to long-term projections, the Regional Plan includes an SCS, in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375. The SCS aims to create sustainable, mixed-use communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth in the previously developed, western portion of the region along the major existing transit and transportation corridors. The purpose of the SCS is to help the San Diego region meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Regional Plan has a horizon year of 2050, and projects regional growth and the construction of transportation projects over this time period. The project site and vicinity are identified as being in a Smart Growth Area and Potential Transit Priority Area (TPA).

On February 22, 2019, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved an action plan to develop a new vision for the 2021 Regional Plan that would transform the way people and goods move throughout the region. Development of the 2021 Regional Plan, including the associated projects, programs, and policies, is underway and going through the planning process. While work progresses to develop this new vision, SANDAG prepared and adopted a 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (2019 Federal RTP; SANDAG 2019b) that complies with federal requirements for the development of regional transportation plans, retains air quality conformity approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and preserves funding for the region’s transportation investments. The 2019 Federal RTP builds on The 2015 Regional Plan with updated project costs and revenues and a new regional growth forecast.

2.0 Environmental Setting
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-4 August 2022

2.4.2 City of La Mesa General Plan
The adopted La Mesa General Plan (City 2012a) is a long-term planning document that guides growth and development in La Mesa by establishing goals, policies, and objectives that reflect the City’s vision for the future. The General Plan is required to include a Land Use and Urban Design Element, which designates the proposed general location and distribution of land uses for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other public and private uses of land. Other elements of the General Plan include Circulation, Conservation and Sustainability, Recreation and Open Space, Historic Preservation, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities, Health and Wellness, and Housing.

The project site has a current General Plan land use designation of Regional Serving Commercial. The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan describes this designation as follows:

Regional Serving Commercial. This land use designation is assigned to those areas of the City which are suitable for more intense urban activities, such as high-volume retail sales, and other sales and services which are expected to draw local and regional customers. Areas designated Regional Commercial are served by convenient freeway access and public transportation.

Grossmont Center, Fletcher Parkway and Alvarado Road are examples of areas where the designation is applied. Examples of uses intended in the Regional Commercial designation include retail shopping centers, large office complexes and uses providing services to the traveling public such as restaurants, service stations, hotels, and motels. Entertainment uses such as movie theaters and nightclubs may be conditionally permitted. Within larger areas of the City, which have been designated Regional Serving Commercial; there may be areas which are suitable for mixed-use or high-density residential developments. The appropriate mix of uses permitted within these areas will be determined on a case-by-case review or by the amendment or adoption of a specific plan which will also establish the appropriate residential density.

2.4.3 Zoning
The existing zone classification for the project site is Light Industrial and Commercial Service - Flood Overlay Zone – Urban Design Overlay Zone. The Light Industrial and Commercial Service zone (CM) is applied in areas that are generally removed from residential uses such as along Alvarado Road. The CM zone is intended to include heavy commercial activity and light industrial services.

The Floodway Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone F) is intended for application in those areas of the City within floodways or water courses in which flood control structures and facilities are either required or planned to be installed or improved. The construction of buildings and structures within areas in Overlay Zone F are prohibited until adequate flood protection facilities are constructed or guaranteed to be constructed and temporary alternate arrangements are made to protect persons and property.

New development and major renovations or remodeling of property within the Urban Design Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone D) are subject to the requirements of the Urban Design Program and approval by the Design Review Board and City Council. This overlay zone is used to supplement the required land use regulations that are reviewed under the standard provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Projects developed within Overlay Zone D are evaluated on their compliance with both the unique design criteria that pertain to the visually sensitive areas and the general development guidelines established by the

2.0 Environmental Setting
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-5 August 2022
Urban Design Program. The proposed Specific Plan however would include site-specific design recommendations and criteria for development within the project site that would supersede those required by the Urban Design Program.

The project proposes to create a new overlay zone, the Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone, which would establish development regulations for the site.

2.4.4 Regional Air Quality Strategy
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and SANDAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) was most recently updated in 2016. The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone. The SDAPCD has also developed the air basin’s input to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards. The SIP, approved by the USEPA in 1996, includes the SDAPCD’s plans and control measures for attaining the ozone national standard. The SIP is also updated on a triennial basis.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the county, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls.

The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The SIP also includes rules and regulations that have been adopted by the SDAPCD to control emissions from stationary sources. These SIP-approved rules may be used as a guideline to determine whether a project’s emissions would have the potential to conflict with the SIP and thereby hinder attainment of the national air quality standard for ozone.

2.4.5 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan), adopted by the San Diego RWQCB in 1994 (updated in 2016), is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: (1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; (2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy; (3) describes implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the region; and (4) describes surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plan (RWQCB 1994).

2.4.6 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is an agency that is required by state law to exist in counties in which there is a commercial and/or a general aviation airport. The purpose of the ALUC is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly development of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports, to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The ALUC is responsible for preparation of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) for each airport in the region. ALUCPs establish land use compatibility policies and development criteria for

2.0 Environmental Setting
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 2-6 August 2022
new development to protect the airports from incompatible land uses. The policies and criteria contained in applicable ALUCPs are addressed in the City of La Mesa’s General Plan (Land Use and Urban Design Element).

The site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Noticing Area for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport. The AIA is defined as “the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission” (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA] 2010b). The AIA for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport serves as the planning boundary for the ALUCP and is divided into two review areas:
(1) Review Area 1 includes the noise contours, safety zones, airspace protection surfaces, and overflight areas; and (2) Review Area 2 comprises the airspace protection surfaces and overflight areas. The project site is located within Review Area 2 for the airport.

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐1 August 2022

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter of the EIR provides a statement of the project goals and objectives, explains the relation of the proposed Specific Plan to the General Plan, describes the specific characteristics of the project, outlines project development standards and design guidelines, discusses project phasing and construction, identifies the discretionary actions required to implement the project, and summarizes administration and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. This chapter has been prepared pursuant to Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives of the project are to:

1. Address the City’s housing supply needs by providing for the development of a mix of housing types to maximize the advantages of locating new infill housing in close proximity to existing regional transportation facilities, including the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, connecting bus routes, and freeway access;

2. Establish a land use plan that would improve public safety in the project area by providing public improvements at current City standards for Alvarado Road, construct channel improvements to address flooding conditions from Alvarado Creek, and relocation and improvement of existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure within the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel;

3. Provide high quality student housing with a short and direct link to San Diego State University from the 70th Street Trolley Station;

4. Establish a land use plan that would transform the site with private development and public improvements that would serve as a new and positive gateway image for the community;

5. Construct and maintain a multi‐modal circulation system for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to enhance accessibility and support active transportation and public transit use;

6. Transform Alvarado Creek within the Specific Plan Area into an urban creek and open space feature within a planned residential community;

7. Provide an environmentally sustainable residential development through the implementation of features such as energy conservation, sustainable landscape, water conservation, and support for alternative transportation, consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP); and

8. Create a unified private development plan that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.

3.2 RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
The Alvarado Specific Plan is a land use planning and regulatory tool that provides the framework to implement the broad goals and policies of the General Plan within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan establishes the land use and development standards for future development projects and public improvements in the Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan includes general provisions and

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐2 August 2022
procedures, permitted land uses, site development plans for private and public improvements, development standards and design guidelines, circulation and mobility plans, public utilities, and infrastructure. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s long‐term vision and policies that encourage higher intensity infill development near existing transit facilities with new housing opportunities, connecting housing with employment, preserving existing neighborhoods, improving public safety, and developing financing mechanisms for needed infrastructure. Specific General Plan policies are referenced within the Specific Plan as to how the proposed land use and development plans are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

This EIR provides an analysis and evaluation of environmental issues associated the proposed Specific Plan and its implementation, as described in greater detail in this chapter. A comprehensive analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies is contained in Section 4.8, Land Use.

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

3.3.1 Development Summary
The proposed project entails a master development plan (Specific Plan) for a phased TOD and associated public improvements. The project would include four development parcels that would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels (Parcels 1‐3) west of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase 2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Each parcel would be developed with a multi‐family residential building with ground‐floor commercial uses.

Phase 1 would feature two multi‐family residential buildings built on a podium deck over multi‐level parking in the central portion of the site and a smaller‐scale building in the western‐most parcel. Phase 2 would include one building in the eastern portion of the site similar in size and scale to the two larger buildings constructed in Phase 1. The buildings would include up to five stories of residential units and one to three levels of parking. Each building would include a mix of housing types and sizes. In total, an estimated 850 to 950 residential units would be constructed at buildout. In addition to the residential uses, the project would include ground floor, resident‐serving commercial uses. Figure 3‐1, Site Plan, depicts a conceptual site plan of the proposed project at buildout.

3.3.2 Project Components

3.3.2.1 Multi-family Residential Uses
The primary land use of the Alvarado Specific Plan consists of multi‐family residential development. The project would develop four multi‐family residential buildings, conceptually shown in Figure 3‐1. As described above, the project would construct three residential structures (Buildings 2, 3, and 4) with similar construction type and size consisting of multi‐level parking structures with residential units built on a podium level above the parking. A smaller‐scale building (Building 1) with a similar construction type is proposed on the smaller and narrower western‐most parcel (Parcel 1). Each building would be up to five levels of residential use constructed on a podium deck with parking underneath. The maximum building height would be 85 feet above grade. The proposed buildings would be wood‐frame construction and the parking garages would be concrete.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐3 August 2022
Building 1 would include five levels of residential use atop a one‐level parking garage with the potential for an attached café or similar use. Building 1 would include a total of 60 apartments comprising a mix of studio, one‐bedroom, and two‐bedroom units. A patio area would be located above the café and sky decks would be provided at the western and eastern ends of the top floor. Figure 3‐2, Building 1 Cross‐section, illustrates a cross‐section of Building 1.

Buildings 2, 3, and 4 would include five levels of residential use atop a three‐level parking garage with an attached leasing office for each building. Each building would include a mix of studio, one‐bedroom, and two‐bedroom units. Liner units (i.e., units with direct access to the interior creek side area via a front stoop concept) would be provided on the outside edge of the buildings that front Alvarado Creek. These three buildings would be similar in scale and appearance. Buildings 3 and 4 would each include 305 apartment units. Building 2 would include either 280 apartments or 187 student housing units (in association with San Diego State University). Figure 3‐3, Building 2 Cross‐section, and Figure 3‐4, Buildings 3 and 4 Cross‐section, illustrate cross‐sections of Buildings 2, 3, and 4.

A summary of proposed multi‐family residential development pursuant to the Specific Plan is provided in Table 3‐1, Multi‐family Residential Development Summary. The number of residential units within each building is estimated and could vary based on the final mix of unit type and size; however, the total number would be a maximum of 950.

Table 3‐1
MULTI‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Parcel/Building Land Use Unit Mix   Estimated Unit
Count
Phase 1
1 Multi‐family residential Studio/1 BR 60
2 Option A – Student Housing Student units 187
Option B – Multi‐family residential Studio/1 BR/2 BR 280 3 Multi‐family residential Studio/1 BR/2 BR 305
Phase 2
4 Multi‐family residential Studio/1 BR/2 BR 305
TOTAL Option A 857
TOTAL Option B 950
BR = bedroom
As shown in Table 3‐1, the Specific Plan allows for a variation to the multi‐family residential unit mix for Building 2 with a student‐housing concept as an option. Based on market demand, this development option could serve as an important off‐campus housing opportunity to help meet the community’s college and university student housing demands.

3.3.2.2 Commercial Uses
Each proposed building would potentially include space for pedestrian‐oriented, resident‐serving commercial uses, such as cafés or other small retail establishments. Such uses would be secondary uses to the residential component and provided to serve residents of the project. Within Building 1, an area that could accommodate a café or similar use is proposed in the northeastern portion of the building at the street level. Commercial spaces within Buildings 2, 3, and 4 could be provided at the ground level or

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐4 August 2022
podium level. For analytical purposes in this EIR, a maximum total of 15,000 square feet of commercial uses distributed throughout the site is assumed at project buildout.

3.3.2.3 Building Design
The land use and development standards in the proposed Specific Plan outline a “form‐based” regulatory concept for the proposed buildings on each of the development parcels. The residential structures would include a range of dwelling unit types and sizes distributed within an allowable building envelope prescribed by the development standards set forth in the Specific Plan. The form‐based development standards include a maximum building height of 85 feet (to the top of roof sheathing) with an additional 12 feet for roof appurtenances.

While no specific architectural styles or treatments for the proposed buildings are prescribed at the Specific Plan level, architectural design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan call for the proposed buildings to have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme yet express an individual character with varying forms, features, and materials. Other architectural design guidelines include:
 Incorporation of strong forms and architectural elements at the primary project entrances to the interior streets to establish a visual gateway to the City;  Use of architectural design forms, features, and variation in materials to provide visual interest in the building façades along Alvarado Road;
 Incorporation of architecturally coordinated building materials and landscaping along the Alvarado Road frontages with exposed parking garage levels;  Application of architectural screening of rooftop mechanical equipment; and  Provision of architectural interest with forms, massing, fenestration, and balconies and viewing locations within interior elevations viewed from the podium deck open space areas and elevations fronting on to the interior private street pathways.

The architecture and building design depicted in the Specific Plan and in this EIR are preliminary and subject to site‐specific design recommendations and criteria contained in the proposed Specific Plan.

The illustrations are provided as examples to represent the potential appearance of the planned multi‐ family residential projects but are not intended as exhibits for the final project architecture and design.

3.3.2.4 Noise Reduction Design Features
The proposed buildings would include noise reduction features that would be incorporated into the design of the project. These noise reduction design features were identified in the project specific noise analysis to achieve consistency with the City’s noise compatibility standards (RECON 2018b). Identified design features include incorporation of sound‐attenuating architectural treatments on exterior walls along the northern, western, eastern, and western half of southern façades of Building 1; the northern façade of Building 2; the northern and northeastern façade of Building 3; and the northern and northwestern façade of Building 4. These walls would include components such as windows, doors, finishes (e.g., stucco, wood siding), and/or wall assemblies (i.e., framing) with architectural treatments that would achieve a composite sound transmission class rating of 35.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐5 August 2022
Additionally, the project would incorporate sound walls into the design at various locations to reduce exterior noise levels at outdoor use areas. The sound walls would consist of solid masonry, acrylic glass, or a combination thereof and at varying heights.

3.3.2.5 Alvarado Creek Improvements
Improvements are proposed to the Alvarado Creek channel that traverses the site to control flood and storm water flows within the channel, as well as to enhance the creek as an open space amenity and natural feature. Most sections of the existing trapezoidal concrete‐lined banks along the channel would be removed and replaced with retaining walls to increase the width of the channel bottom. Retaining walls of various heights would be installed along the entire northern bank, and a portion of the southern bank, adjacent to proposed Building 4. The remaining on‐site portion of the south bank would remain but would be stabilized with riprap or vegetation. The improved creek would accommodate 100‐year storm events to resolve the existing flooding conditions that occur on the project site during high storm events. Figure 3‐5, Alvarado Creek Flood Channel Improvements, shows a plan view and various cross‐ sections of proposed improvements. Refer also to Figure 3‐4 for an illustrative cross‐section of the enhanced channel.

Alvarado Creek would also be enhanced (i.e., removal of non‐native plants and debris) and restored with riparian vegetation, including broad‐leaved cattail, Olney’s three‐square bulrush, and southern bulrush.

The enhanced creek would function as a major open space feature of the project. Figure 3‐6, Alvarado Creek Restoration, shows the areas along the creek that would be restored with native riparian vegetation.

3.3.2.6 Public Improvements
In addition to the Alvarado Creek channel improvements described above, other public improvements would be implemented as part of the project, including Alvarado Road frontage improvements, overhead utility relocations, and sewer improvements. These proposed public improvements are shown in Figure 3‐7, Proposed Public Improvements.

Alvarado Road Improvements
Frontage road improvements to Alvarado Road would include a shared pedestrian/bicycle path, curb and gutter, streetlights, street trees, an on‐street parking lane, a pedestrian bridge over the Alvarado Creek channel, and a pedestrian connection to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The project would dedicate 1.5 feet of road right‐of‐way along the project frontage to provide a 31.5‐foot‐wide road right‐of‐way west of the Alvarado Creek overcrossing that would include two 11‐foot‐wide vehicular travel lanes, a 7‐foot‐wide parking lane, a 2‐foot‐wide curb/shoulder on the north side, and a 0.5‐foot‐ wide curb on the south side. A 16‐foot‐wide public access easement would be provided along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage to provide for a 4‐foot‐wide landscape parkway and a 12‐foot‐wide shared pedestrian/bicycle path.

East of the Alvarado Creek overcrossing, the improved roadway would include a 45‐foot‐wide right‐of‐ way with two 11‐foot‐wide vehicular travel lanes, a 7‐foot‐wide parking lane, a 2‐foot‐wide curb/ shoulder on the north side, a 0.5‐foot‐wide curb on the south side, a 4‐foot‐wide landscape parkway, and 10 feet of the 12‐foot‐wide shared pedestrian/bicycle path. The remaining two feet of the shared path outside of the right‐of‐way would be placed in a public access easement.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐6 August 2022
Additionally, a 15‐foot‐wide prefabricated pedestrian bridge would be constructed over Alvarado Creek where it crosses under Alvarado Road within the road right‐of‐way. The pedestrian bridge would connect to the proposed sidewalk on both sides of the creek and provide a pedestrian linkage between the eastern and western portions of the site that are bisected by the creek. At the western end of the project site, a public connection to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station would be provided as part of the new sidewalk along Alvarado Road.

Refer to Figure 3‐7 for the location of proposed road improvements and a typical cross‐section. An illustrative plan of the proposed roadway improvements is provided in Figure 3‐8, Alvarado Road Improvements.

Overhead Utility Relocations
The existing communications and 12‐kilovolt power lines that extend across the site would be relocated underground. These lines currently cross over I‐8, the central portion of the site, and up to Keeney Street in a generally north‐south alignment. The portion of the overhead utility lines that cross the site would be relocated underground in the western end of the site. Refer to Figure 3‐7 for the location of these overhead utilities to be relocated.

Sewer System Improvements
Sewer system improvements are also proposed, including relocating an existing sewer trunk line within Alvarado Creek out of the channel and under the proposed internal access road, raising and capping an existing manhole, removal of portions of existing on‐site sewer lines, and construction of new on‐site sewer lines. Refer to Figure 3‐7 for the location of proposed sewer improvements.

3.3.2.7 Recreation and Public Spaces
The proposed buildings would include interior project amenity facilities and active outdoor spaces on the podium deck levels. Building amenities are anticipated to include clubhouses, pools, and gymnasiums, as well as patios, balconies, and sky decks. Outdoor recreation areas would include a pedestrian promenade, courtyards, public gathering spaces, seating areas, and observation areas (e.g., seating and/or interpretive signage at Alvarado Creek overlook areas). The pedestrian promenade would be located along the interior of the project site and much of it would be adjacent to the enhanced Alvarado Creek.

3.3.2.8 Landscape and Hardscape Treatments
A comprehensive landscaping plan would be implemented as the site is developed. Landscape and/or hardscape treatments would be provided generally in four areas, including the Alvarado Road streetscape, interior roadways, podium decks, and stormwater basins, as shown in Figure 3‐9, Landscape Plan Concept.

Landscape treatments planned for the Alvarado Road street frontage include street trees with mixed heights and species to create a vertical edge separating the roadway from the new sidewalk. The streetscape plan also includes a series of bulb‐outs in the parking lane to add both depth and height to help reinforce the tree line street edge and provide some screening for above‐grade parking levels facing the street. In addition, a planting area would be provided between the sidewalk and the parking

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐7 August 2022
structures to provide additional landscape screening of the parking structures. The existing retaining wall along the north side of Alvarado Road would be planted with vines.

The interior roadways would include sections of enhanced paving treatment and a series of viewing areas at the creek side. These linear pathways would include a variety of trees, low shrubs, and plant materials that would complement the Alvarado Creek restoration.

Podium deck courtyards would be planted with trees and smaller plant materials in raised planters to define functional outdoor spaces. There would also be a substantial planting zone to include screening trees and shrubs as part of Building 2 and patio areas for Building 3 in the approximately 50 feet that separates Building 2 and 3 at the podium deck level.

Biofiltration basins are proposed throughout the site to filter and convey on‐site runoff flows. These basins would be planted with grasses and plants, with trees, shrubs, and groundcovers around the basin edges.

As described in Section 3.3.2.4, portions of the Alvarado Creek channel within the project site would also be restored by removing non‐native species and planting native riparian vegetation.

3.3.2.9 Signage
The three existing billboards on the project site would remain in their current location upon development of the proposed project. The project would also include entry monument signage at the site access points. The specifics of these signs are not known at the Specific Plan level, but a Comprehensive Sign Program would be implemented to define the sign design standards for the overall project at the time a Site Development Plan is approved for Phase 1 in conformance with the provisions of City of La Mesa Municipal Code (LMMC) Section 15.10.040(c), Special Sign Regulations. For the purposes of analysis, project monument signs are evaluated per the sign regulations for freestanding monument signs in accordance with LMMC Section 15.10.040(d)(2), which allow a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum sign area of 50 square feet per sign face.

3.3.2.10 Lighting
The project would include lighting elements to provide safety and to accent project focal points.

Streetlights would be installed along the Alvarado Road frontage as part of the proposed public improvements. Lighting within the site would be provided along the internal access roads, pedestrian promenade, and pathways; within recreation areas and public outdoor spaces; on buildings, and at the project entry monument signs. Proposed lights would be as low level as possible, timed as appropriate, directed downward, and shielded to minimize spillover onto adjacent properties. Accent lighting would be directed away from Alvarado Creek.

3.3.3 On-site Circulation/Access
Access to the project site and proposed on‐site circulation are shown in Figure 3‐10, On‐site Circulation Plan.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐8 August 2022

3.3.3.1 Vehicular Circulation
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from Alvarado Road via three unsignalized access points. A fourth access point would be provided but would only be used for emergencies. The primary access points would connect to an internal ring road system comprising two separate access roads: one that would loop around Buildings 2 and 3, and another that would loop around Building 4. Vehicles entering the site at the three primary access points would drive along the interior road for a relatively short distance and then turn into the parking structures. The loop road would be gated at the parking structure entrances and vehicle access beyond the parking structure entrances would be restricted to emergency vehicles, service vehicles, special deliveries, and move‐in functions. The gated portion of the internal roadways would function as a pedestrian promenade, as discussed further in Section 3.3.3.2.

Figure 3‐11, On‐site Street Concept, provides an illustrative view of the proposed internal loop roads.

3.3.3.2 Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian circulation would be provided throughout the site by a network of pathways, plazas, and public spaces. The project would provide pedestrian circulation improvements along the Alvarado Road frontage consisting of a 12‐foot‐wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of the roadway within a public use easement. This path would provide on‐street pedestrian facilities where none currently exist and would connect to the on‐site roadways and the existing sidewalk to the east.

Additionally, a public pedestrian connection to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley would be provided at the west end of the project site. Figure 3‐12, Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path, provides a plan view and cross‐section of this proposed facility.

The primary on‐site pedestrian facilities would include pedestrian promenades along substantial portions of the internal loop roads. The promenades would extend between the vehicular gates at the parking structure entrances and around the outer perimeter of Buildings 2, 3, and 4 oriented toward the enhanced Alvarado Creek. These promenades would be 20‐ to 26‐feet wide and would feature decorative paving, landscaping, and seating/viewing areas. Refer to Figure 3‐11 for details of the pedestrian promenades.

3.3.3.3 Bicycle Circulation
Bicycle access to the project site would be provided via the proposed shared pedestrian/bicycle facility described above and shown in Figure 3‐12. This facility would connect to the on‐site roadways and planned future bicycle facilities along Alvarado Road east and west of the project site. The public connection to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station would also accommodate bicycles. Furthermore, the project would provide bicycle storage facilities to promote bicycling.

3.3.4 Utilities
Utility services would be provided through construction of pipelines/extensions from existing utility infrastructure on the site and within surrounding roadways. Water extensions from an existing pipeline within Alvarado Road would be constructed to accommodate the project. Sewer pipelines would be extended from the existing Alvarado Trunk Sewer line in Alvarado Road and along portions of the proposed internal loop roads before connecting to existing lines to the south.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐9 August 2022
Site drainage would be collected in a proposed private, on‐site storm drain system consisting of detention basins, grass‐lined swales, catch basins, and storm drains that would be directed to Alvarado Creek.

3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Specific Plan establishes development standards and design guidelines to be used for the basis of design for the development projects that implement the private and public improvement plans described within the Specific Plan. These development standards and design guidelines would supersede those traditionally associated with the underlying zone classification for new development within the Specific Plan area. To accomplish this, an Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone would be established to apply to the entire Specific Plan area.

The development standards utilize a “form‐based” approach, which establish overall building envelopes, distribution of uses, and other factors that describe the individual multi‐family residential buildings and the site improvements. This approach allows for some design flexibility in terms of residential unit mix/types and/or architectural design during the Site Development Plan and Design Review process while still being deemed consistent with the Specific Plan. Key form‐based development standards that define the building envelopes include maximum building heights of 85 feet above grade, a maximum of five floors of residential above the parking levels, and compliance with minimum floodway elevations.

The design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan pertain to site design and architectural design and address broad guidance for landscaping, interior streets, lighting, signage, architectural style, project entrances, building façade variation, and parking structure and rooftop mechanical equipment screening.

3.5 DEMOLITION, GRADING, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Project construction would require demolition and removal of existing on‐site buildings, pavement, and other developed features to clear the site. Grading would be conducted on approximately 90 percent of the project site and would occur either in two phases or all at the same time. Although it is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in two phases, grading of the entire project site may occur during the first phase with the development of the second phase improvements occurring later.

Project grading would require approximately 46,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 16,100 cy of fill, resulting in the export of 29,900 cy of earth material. The average fill depth would be approximately two feet with a maximum depth of approximately eight feet. The average cut depth would be approximately three feet and a maximum of 11 feet (within the channel). The site is relatively flat and does not contain any steep slopes. Existing landforms and topographic conditions would essentially remain the same upon project development. The preliminary grading plan is shown on Figure 3‐13, Conceptual Grading Plan.

Project phasing would be dependent on market conditions. The entire project could be developed at one time, or construction could occur in two phases. Under the phased scenario, Phase 1 would include development of Parcels 1, 2, and 3, which encompasses the portion of the site west of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site. Phase 1 would include construction of Buildings 1, 2, and 3, as well as the proposed major public improvements associated with the Alvarado Road, Alvarado Creek, and utilities.

Construction would begin with demolition/clearing of this portion of the site followed by grading activities and building pad preparation. Following utilities installation/relocation and construction of the

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐10 August 2022
public improvements, Buildings 1, 2, and/or 3 would be constructed in any order or combination. The portion of the existing RV resort on Parcel 4 (portion of the site east of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site) could remain operational as an interim use until Phase 2 is developed. Phase 2 would include development of Parcel 4, which would include Building 4. The construction sequence of Phase 2 would be similar to Phase 1.

Construction traffic control plans would be prepared to identify truck haul routes, the hours of construction activity, work zones, staging areas, provision of people on the street to direct traffic as applicable, avoidance of travel during peak hours to the extent feasible, and other traffic controls as necessary. Construction equipment would enter and exit the site from Alvarado Avenue.

The project would comply with applicable San Diego SDAPCD rules intended to reduce air pollution during construction, including dust control measures through implementation of Rule 55; use of a construction fleet equipped with diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, and/or diesel particulate filters; and use of CARB/USEPA Engine Certification Tier 4, or equivalent methods approved by CARB.

3.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
This EIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover all local, regional, and state permits and/or approvals which may be needed to implement the project. The anticipated discretionary approvals are identified in Table 3‐2, Anticipated Discretionary Actions, below. This list is not meant to be exhaustive or final; other approvals may be identified during the implementation process.

Table 3‐2

ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Action/Approval/Permit Agency
Certification of PEIR City of La Mesa
Adoption of the Alvarado Specific Plan City of La Mesa
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish an
Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone
City of La Mesa
Development Agreement City of La Mesa
Site Development Plans City of La Mesa
Design Review City of La Mesa
Demolition Permits City of La Mesa
Grading Permits City of La Mesa
Building Permits City of La Mesa
Encroachment Permits MTS, Caltrans
Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit USACE
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification RWQCB Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement CDFW NPDES Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit RWQCB Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐11 August 2022

3.7 SPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The proposed Specific Plan is subject to the procedures and standards established for specific plans by California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457, which defines both the content of the plan and the methods by which the plan must be locally adopted. The Alvarado Specific Plan has been developed as a means of implementing the General Plan within the Specific Plan area. It establishes the land use and development standards for development projects and public improvements in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan discusses general provisions and procedures, permitted land uses, site development plans for private and public improvements, development standards and design guidelines, circulation and mobility plans, public utilities, and infrastructure. It also addresses potential phased development within the Specific Plan area and required coordination with other public agencies with regulatory authority over development and resources within the Specific Plan area. Development projects within the Alvarado Specific Plan area must be consistent with the policies and procedures established by the Alvarado Specific Plan.

Modifications, adjustments, or changes to the Specific Plan may be necessary during the implementation process to address unforeseen conditions or events affecting the planned development within the Specific Plan area. Proposed minor modifications to the Specific Plan would be addressed administratively without the requirement for a formal Specific Plan Amendment Application and public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director would have the authority to determine if the minor modification request should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. The Community Development Director may refer the request for a minor modification to the Planning Commission or the City Council for review. The Community Director’s determination for a minor modification may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Proposed changes to the Specific Plan that are determined to be more substantive than an interpretation or minor modification would require a formal application and procedures for a Specific Plan Amendment with review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Amendments to the Specific Plan must be found to be consistent with the General Plan.

Upon adoption of the Alvarado Specific Plan, planned development projects within the Specific Plan area would be subject to the City’s Site Development Plan and Design Review process, as well as permit/ approval processes of any applicable Responsible or Trustee Agencies (refer to Table 3‐2). As part of this entitlement process, site improvement and development plans for the multi‐family residential projects defined in the Specific Plan would require findings of consistency with the Alvarado Specific Plan.

3.0 Project Description
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 3‐12 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-1_SitePlan.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Site Plan
Figure 3-1
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page II-5
Figure 12 - Overall Site Plan

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LaMesaCity_00986\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-2_Building1_Cross-Sec.indd LAM-08 8/4/2022 - RK Building 1 Cross-section
Figure 3-2
Source: Schmidt 2020
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-12
Alvarado Specific Plan
Figure 15a - Building Sections for Building 1
501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
RADO SPECIFIC PLAN 858-350-0544
JOB NO. 17-310
DATE 1-17-2018
ROW
Interstate 8 Alvarado Road Shared
Sidewalk
16’-0”
Building 1
Vines on Wall Parallel Parking Pedestrian Walkway
5’-0”
Alvarado Creek Existing Trolley Line
ction A - A - Figure 15A
A
A
Key Map N.T.S.

Scale: 1” = 20’-0” 0 10 20 40
Skydeck
Podium Deck Level
Garage Level 1
Potential
Mixed Use

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LaMesaCity_00986\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-3_Building2_Cross-Sec.indd LAM-08 8/4/2022 - RK Building 2 Cross-section
Figure 3-3
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-13
Figure 15b - Building Sections for Building 2
501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 858-350-0544
JOB NO. 17-310
DATE 1-17-2018
Alvarado Road
ROW
Shared
Sidewalk/
Bike Path
Building 2
Parallel Parking
Proposed Vines
Interstate 8
Pedestrian Alvarado Creek Trolley Line
Promenade / 26’ Wide
EVA New
Retaining Wall
Existing
Retaining Wall
Bio ltration Basin
Alvarado Road Improvements - Figure 16B
B
B
Key Map N.T.S.

Scale: 1” = 20’-0” 0 10 20 40
Garage Level 1 Garage Level 1
Garage Level 3 Liner Units
Presidential
Floor 5
Presidential
Floor 4
Presidential
Floor 3
Presidential
Floor 2
Presidential
Floor 1
Garage Level 2 Liner Units
Open Space /
Recreation Area

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-4_Building3_4_Cross-Sec.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Building 3 and 4 Cross-section
Figure 3-4
Source: Schmidt 2020
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-18
Alvarado Specific Plan
Figure 16c - Building Section with Liner Unit Examples

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-5_AlvaradoCreek_Improvements.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Alvarado Creek Flood Channel Improvements
Figure 3-5
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page II-61
Figure 36 - Site Plan View with Flood Channel Improvement Locations

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-6_AlvaradoCreek_Restoration.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Alvarado Creek Flood Channel Restoration
Figure 3-6
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-31 Figure 47 - Plan View to Illustrate the Alvarado Creek Planting and Restoration Area

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-7_Public_Improvements.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Proposed Public Improvements
Figure 3-7
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page II-59
Figure 35 - Summary Map of Planned Public Improvements

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-8_AlavardoRd_Improvements.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Alvarado Road Improvements
Figure 3-8
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page II-47
Figure 30b - Plan View of Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvement Plans

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-9_LandscapePlan.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Landscape Plan Concept
Figure 3-9
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-35
Figure 25 - Open Space and Landscape Area Detailed Site Plan Views

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-10_CirculationPlan.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK On-site Circulation Plan
Figure 3-10
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-51
Figure 32a - Plan View of Interior Street Circulation and Mobility Plan ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
JOB NO. 1386.001 N
A.7
*
*
*
*
INTERSTATE 8

ALVARADO ROAD

TROLLEY LINE

PROPERTY LINE OF SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

ALVARADO CREEK
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 4
MTS

STATION
ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND MOBILITY ELEMENTS - FIGURE 34

PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE

TROLLEY

STATION
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

PRIMARY SITE ACCESS POINT

SECONDARY ACCESS POINT

PUBLIC STREET - ALVARADO ROAD

PICK UP & DROP OFF ZONE

GARAGE ENTRY

PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN CASEMENT AREA

PRIVATE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY

SECURITY GATES

CREEKSIDE OPEN SPACE FEATURES
*

ENHANCED
PAVING

ENHANCED
PAVING

ENHANCED
PAVING

ENHANCED
PAVING

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-11_StreetConcept.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK On-site Street Concept
Figure 3-11
Source: Schmidt 2020
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-52
Alvarado Specific Plan
Figure 32b - Plan View of Interior Street Improvement Plans

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LaMesaCity_00986\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-12_SharedPath.indd LAM-08 8/4/2022 - RK Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path
Figure 3-12
Source: Schmidt 2020
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-49
Figure 31 - Detailed Plan View: Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Concept, Section of Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Concept 501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 858-350-0544
JOB NO. 17-310
DATE 1-17-2018
Typical Building
ROW PL
Alvarado Road
22’-0”
Shared Path
12’-0”
Landscape
+/-7’-0”
Parallel
Parking
7’-0” Tree Grate
4’-0”
Interstate 8
Proposed Vines
2’-0”
LEGEND
Existing retaining wall Parallel parking Property line
4’-0” tree grate
12’-0” shared path
Vine planting on wall
Planting bump out
1 1
3 4
6 7
5 2
4 7
5 6
2 3
Shared Sidewalk & Bike Path Enlargement- Figure 32 & 33 Scale: 1” = 10’-0” 0 5 10 20
A
A
A’
A’
Garage Level 3
Garage Level 2
Garage Level 1
Interstate 8
Alvarado Road
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-49
Figure 31 - Detailed Plan View: Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Concept, Section of Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Concept 501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 858-350-0544
JOB NO. 17-310
DATE 1-17-2018
Typical Building
ROW PL
Alvarado Road
22’-0”
Shared Path
12’-0”
Landscape
+/-7’-0”
Parallel
Parking
7’-0” Tree Grate
4’-0”
Interstate 8
Proposed Vines
2’-0”
LEGEND
Existing retaining wall Parallel parking Property line
4’-0” tree grate
12’-0” shared path
Vine planting on wall
Planting bump out
1 1
3 4
6 7
5 2
4 7
5 6
2 3
Shared Sidewalk & Bike Path Enlargement- Figure 32 & 33 Scale: 1” = 10’-0” 0 5 10 20
A
A
A’
A’
Garage Level 3
Garage Level 2
Garage Level 1
Interstate 8
Alvarado Road
1 3
2 4
5 2
3 4
6 6
5 1

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig3-13_GradingPlan.indd LAM-08 05/07/20 -RK Conceptual Grading Plan
Figure 3-13
Source: Fuscoe 2020
A
B
C

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO.

E IGN GNIREEN
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com
DRAWN BY:

SHEET
of 4

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
3 TYPICAL PRIVATE/EMERGENCY ACCESS

SOUTH BANK NORTH BANK

CHANNEL SECTION ALVARADO ROAD
A
B
C

TYPICAL PRIVATE/EMERGENCY ACCESS

SOUTH BANK NORTH BANK

CHANNEL SECTION ALVARADO ROAD
LEGEND

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4-1 August 2022

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Sections 4.1 through 4.14 analyze the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. The environmental issues analyzed in the following sections include those that were identified by the City as potentially significant in response to the NOP. There are 14 environmental issues addressed in the following sections. A brief discussion of additional impacts that were determined not to be potentially significant is included in Section 6.1, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. The environmental topics addressed in this chapter include the following:

4.1 Air Quality

4.2 Biological Resources

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.4 Geology and Soils

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8 Land Use

4.9 Noise

4.10 Paleontological Resources

4.11 Public Services and Facilities

4.12 Public Utilities

4.13 Transportation

4.14 Visual Resources
Each section is formatted to include a description of the existing conditions and regulatory context; a description of methodology and assumptions used in the analysis, if applicable; the criteria for determining the significance for each impact; an evaluation of potential impacts; mitigation measures, if applicable; and a conclusion of significance.

4.0 Environmental Analysis
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4-2 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-1 August 2022

4.1 AIR QUALITY
This section of the EIR evaluates potential air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This analysis is based on the Air Quality Technical Report (AQTR; HELIX 2020a) prepared for the project, which is included as Appendix B of this EIR.

4.1.1 Existing Conditions

4.1.1.1 Climate and Meteorology
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) which coincides with the geographical boundary of San Diego County. The climate in the SDAB is controlled largely by the large-scale meteorological condition that dominates the west coast of the Undated States: a seasonally semi-permanent high-pressure cell centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, called the Pacific high, which keeps most storms from affecting the California coast. Areas within 30 miles of the coast in the San Diego region, including the project site, experience moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity.

Temperature inversion layers (inversions; layers of warmer air over colder air) affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SDAB generally occur during inversions. During the summer, air quality problems in the SDAB are created due to the interaction between the ocean surface and the lower layer of the atmosphere, creating a moist marine layer. An upper layer of warm air mass forms over the cool marine layer, preventing air pollutants from dispersing upward. Additionally, hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) react under the strong, abundant sunlight in the San Diego region, creating smog. Light, daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving the air pollutants inland, toward the foothills. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to CO and NO2 emissions. High NO2 levels usually occur during autumn or winter, on days with summer-like conditions.

The predominant wind direction in the vicinity of the project site is from the southwest and the average wind speed is approximately six miles per hour (mph; Iowa Environmental Mesonet [IEM] 2019). The annual average maximum temperature in the project area is approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the annual average minimum temperature is approximately 52°F. Total precipitation in the project area averages approximately 13 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2006).

4.1.1.2 Air Pollutant Descriptors and Terminology
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general public. In general, air pollutants include the following compounds:
• Ozone (O3)
• Reactive organic gases (ROGs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) • CO
• NO2

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-2 August 2022
• Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) • Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
Criteria pollutants can be emitted directly from sources (primary pollutants; e.g., CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead), or they may be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere (secondary pollutants; e.g., ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5). The principal precursor pollutants of concern are reactive organic gasses ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])1 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

The descriptions of sources and general health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 4.1-1, Summary of Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants, based on information provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA; 2018). Specific adverse health effects to individuals or population groups induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables such as cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individuals (e.g., age, gender).

Criteria pollutant precursors (ROG and NOX) affect air quality on a regional scale, typically after significant delay and distance from the pollutant source emissions. Health effects related to ozone and NO2 are, therefore, the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region.

Emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles traveling to or from the project site (mobile emissions) are distributed nonuniformly in location and time throughout the region, wherever the vehicles may travel.

As such, specific health effects from these criteria pollutant emissions cannot be directly correlated to the incremental contribution from the project.

Table 4.1-1

SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. Common sources of these
precursor pollutants include motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions,
gasoline storage and transport, solvents,
paints, and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways;
causes wheezing, coughing, and pain
when inhaling deeply; decreases lung
capacity; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Damages plants; reduces crop
yield. Damages rubber, some textiles and
dyes.

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely;
a component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the
cardiovascular and nervous system.

Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can
lead to unconsciousness or death.
1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-3 August 2022
Table 4.1-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other
sources that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Precursor to ozone and
acid rain. Contributes to climate change
and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Produced by power plants, steel mills,
chemical plants, unpaved roads and
parking lots, wood-burning stoves and
fireplaces, automobiles, and other
sources.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma;
development of chronic bronchitis;
irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart
attacks; and premature death in people
with heart or lung disease. Impairs
visibility (haze).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when fuel containing sulfur is burned,
when gasoline is extracted from oil, or
when metal is extracted from ore.

Examples are petroleum refineries,
cement manufacturing, metal processing
facilities, locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and
heart problems. In the presence of
moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide
converts to sulfuric acid which can
damage marble, iron and steel. Damages
crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Lead Metallic element emitted from metal
refineries, smelters, battery
manufacturers, iron and steel producers,
use of leaded fuels by racing and aircraft
industries.

Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and
kidney damage, neurological disorders,
cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals,
plants, and aquatic ecosystems.

Source: CAPCOA 2018
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.

Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2018a). Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-4 August 2022
published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2018a).

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that naturally occurs in some rock and soil. Long-term exposure to airborne asbestos fibers has been linked to major health effects including lung cancer; mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest, abdomen, and heart; and asbestosis, a serious progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs (USEPA 2019a). Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance, asbestos has been used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant, primarily in buildings constructed before 1979. Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of asbestos containing material (ACM) during renovation and demolition activities; or during earth disturbing activities in areas where naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present in the rock or soil. NOA is not likely to be present in the soil and rock of San Diego County (California Geologic Survey [CGS] 2000).

Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element that is found in small amounts in the earth’s crust. In addition to its status as a criteria pollutant, lead is listed as a TAC because, depending on the level and duration of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. There is also a probable link between lead exposure and kidney cancer, brain cancer (gliomas), and lung cancer (USEPA 2019b). Lead particulate matter can be emitted during demolition and renovation activities that disturb material that contains lead-based paint (LBP), most typically found in structures built before 1978.

4.1.1.3 Existing Air Quality
Attainment Designations
Areas that do not meet state or federal standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS] and National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]) for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. The SDAB is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. The SDAB is an attainment area or unclassified for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone (one-hour and eight-hour), PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAB is an attainment area or unclassified for the CAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The current federal and state attainment status for the SDAB is provided in Table 4.1-2, Federal and State Air Quality Designations in the San Diego Air Basin.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-5 August 2022
Table 4.1-2

FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY DESIGNATIONS IN THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3) (1-hour) (No federal standard) Nonattainment Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassifiable1 Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Nonattainment nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Unclassified
Visibility (No federal standard) Unclassified
Source: CARB 2018b; SDAPCD 2018 1 At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.

Monitored Air Quality
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout the San Diego region. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets state and federal standards, pursuant to the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The nearest ambient monitoring station to the project site is the El Cajon-Lexington Elementary School monitoring station located approximately five miles east of the project site at 533 First Street in El Cajon. This station monitors the following criteria air pollutants: O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Air quality data collected at the El Cajon-Lexington Elementary School monitoring station for the years 2016 through 2018 (the most recent available data) are shown in Table 4.1-3, Air Quality Monitoring Data.

Table 4.1-3

AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standards 2016 2017 2018
Ozone (O3)
Maximum concentration 1-hour period (ppm) 0.087 0.096 0.087 Maximum concentration 8-hour period (ppm) 0.074 0.081 0.079 Days above 1-hour state standard (>0.09 ppm) 0 1 0
Days above 8-hour state/federal standard (>0.070 ppm) 1 9 2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.048 0.045 0.045
Days above state 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Days above federal 1-hour standard (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Annual average (ppm) * 0.010 0.008
Exceed annual federal standard (0.053 ppm) * No No
Exceed annual state standard (0.030 ppm) * No No

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-6 August 2022
Table 4.1-3 (cont.)

AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standards 2016 2017 2018
Suspended Particulates (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 43.0 50.0 43.0
Measured Days above 24-hr state standard (>50 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Measured Days above 24-hr federal standard
(>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Annual average (µg/m3) * 23.0 23.0
Exceed state annual standard (20 µg/m3) * Yes Yes
Suspended Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 23.9 31.8 36.2
Days above 24-hour federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 0 0 1
Annual average (µg/m3) * 9.6 10.5
Exceed state and federal annual standard (12 µg/m3) * No No Source: CARB 2020. Data collected at the El Cajon-Lexington Elementary School air quality monitoring station. ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = insufficient data Monitoring data at the El Cajon-Lexington Elementary School station reported one exceedance of the one-hour state ozone standard in 2017 and several days above the eight-hour state/federal ozone standard throughout 2016 to 2018. No exceedances of the state or federal standards for NO2 occurred during 2016 to 2018. There were no exceedances of the state or federal standards for PM10 during 2016 to 2018. The annual average for PM10 exceeded the state and federal standard in 2017 and 2018; however, insufficient data was available for 2016. The maximum 24-hour concentrations of PM2.5 indicate levels above the federal standard occurred for one day in 2018, but no exceedances of the state or federal annual average during 2016 to 2018.

4.1.1.4 Existing On-site Air Emissions
The criteria pollutant and precursor emissions associated with operation of the existing on-site land use were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2, described in Section 4.1.3. The estimated emissions for the Phase 1 area (Parcels 1-3) and Phase 2 area (Parcel 4) are shown in Table 4.1-4, Existing On-site Land Use Emissions.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-7 August 2022
Table 4.1-4

EXISTING ON-SITE LAND USE EMISSIONS
Source Category
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
VOC
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
NOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
CO
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
SOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM10
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM2.5
Existing Land Use Parcels 1-3
Area 2.6 <0.1 7.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.7 2.7 7.0 <0.1 1.8 0.5
Parcels 1-3 Total1 3.4 3.4 14.9 <0.1 1.9 0.6
Existing Land Use Parcel 4
Area 1.0 <0.1 3.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.2 0.9 2.4 <0.1 0.7 0.2
Parcel 4 Total1 1.3 1.1 5.4 <0.1 0.7 0.2
Source: HELIX 2020a 1 Total may not sum due to rounding. Parcels 1-3 correspond to Phase 1 of the project and Parcel 4 corresponds to Phase 2 of the project.

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

4.1.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005, OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single- and multi-family residences across the MTS Green Line trolley corridor to the south, approximately 80 feet from the southern boundary of the project site; and single- and multi-family residences across I-8 to the north, approximately 260 feet from the northern boundary of the project site. The closest school is the Maryland Avenue Elementary School, approximately 1,100 feet (0.2 mile) across I-8 to the north. The closest daycare center is the Taproot Montessori, approximately 1,500 feet (0.3 mile) to the east. There are no hospitals within

0.5 mile of the project site.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting

4.1.2.1 Federal
Clean Air Act
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the general public. The USEPA is responsible for

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-8 August 2022
enforcing the CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the USEPA to establish NAAQS, which identify concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are anticipated. In response, the USEPA established both primary and secondary standards for several criteria pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.

Table 4.1-5, Ambient Air Quality Standards, shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards for these pollutants.

Table 4.1-5

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primary1
Federal Standards
Secondary2
O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –
NO2 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) – AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary SO2 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) – 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
Pb 30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Rolling
3-month Avg.
– 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 Hour Extinction coefficient of

0.23 per km – visibility
≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km – ≥30 miles
for Lake Tahoe)
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
H2S 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Source: CARB 2016
1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

Note: More detailed information of the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).

O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = large particulate matter; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; km = kilometer; – = No Standard.

As discussed in Section 4.1.1.3, areas that do not meet the NAAQS or the CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. The SDAB was classified as a

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-9 August 2022
moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone and is an attainment area or unclassified for the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants.

4.1.2.2 State
California Clean Air Act
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. As such, CARB has established the more stringent CAAQS for the criteria air pollutants regulated by the NAAQS through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and has also established CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles (see Table 4.1.4). As discussed in Section 4.1.1.3, the SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for ozone (1-hour and 8-hour), PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAB is an attainment area or unclassified for the CAAQS for all other criteria pollutants.

CARB is the state regulatory agency with the authority to enforce regulations to both achieve and maintain the NAAQS and CAAQS. The SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the rules and regulations designed to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, as well as the permitting of new or modified sources, developing of air quality management plans, and adopting and enforcing air pollution regulations for San Diego County (County).

State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the CAA set deadlines for attainment based on the severity of an area's air pollution problem.

SIPs are not single documents—they are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (e.g., monitoring, modeling, permitting), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. Many of California's SIPs rely on a core set of control strategies, including emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards the SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of the items which are included in the California SIP.

At any one time, several California submittals are pending USEPA approval.

California Energy Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for water heating) results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-10 August 2022
several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvement to the residential standards is a requirement for onsite photovoltaic electricity generation (e.g., solar panels) for most new or modified residential building up to three stories high. The project proposes five story residential buildings and the solar panel requirement would not apply.

The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards – the energy budgets – that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach. Future development per the proposed project would be required to be designed to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

4.1.2.3 Local
Regional Air Quality Strategy
The SDAPCD and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for the attainment and maintenance of the AAQS in the SDAB. The SDAPCD prepared the San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), which was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on an approximate triennial basis. The most recent version of the RAQS was adopted by the SDAPCD in December 2016 (SDAPCD 2016). As part of, and attached to, the RAQS are the Transportation Control Measures for the air quality plan prepared by SANDAG. Together, the RAQS and Transportation Control Measures provide the framework for achieving attainment of the CAAQS. The local RAQS, in combination with the plans from all other California nonattainment areas with serious (or worse) air quality problems, is submitted to the CARB, which develops the SIP.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County, to estimate future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the County of San Diego as part of the development of the County’s General Plan. While SANDAG collaborates with the SDAPCD on the development of the portion of the SIP applicable to the SDAB, the SDAPCD is the lead agency. As such, the SDAPCD is responsible for projecting all future mobile source emissions (using CARB’s mobile source emissions inventory EMFAC).

San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations Future development pursuant to the project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rules and Regulations which require the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) during construction to reduce emissions of fugitive dust.

Rule 50 (Visible Emissions)
Particulate matter pollution impacts the environment by decreasing visibility (haze). These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and come from a variety of natural and manmade sources. Some haze-causing particles are directly emitted to the air such as windblown dust and soot.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-11 August 2022
Others are formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon particles) which are the major constituents of PM2.5. These fine particles, caused largely by combustion of fuel, can travel hundreds of miles causing visibility impairment.

Visibility reduction is probably the most apparent symptom of air pollution. Visibility degradation is caused by the absorption and scattering of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere before it reaches the observer. As the number of fine particles increases, more light is absorbed and scattered, resulting in less clarity, color, and visual range. Light absorption by gases and particles is sometimes the cause of discolorations in the atmosphere but usually does not contribute very significantly to visibility degradation. Scattering by particulates impairs visibility much more readily. SDAPCD Rule 50 (Visible Emissions) sets emission limits based on the apparent density or opacity of the emissions using the Ringelmann scale.

Rule 51 (Nuisance)
SDAPCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of the rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of fowls or animals.

Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control)
SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control) requires action be taken to limit dust from construction and demolition activities from leaving the property line. Similar to Rule 50 (Visible Emissions), Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control) places limits on the amount of visible dust emissions in the atmosphere beyond the property line. It further stipulates that visible dust on roadways as a result of track-out/carry-out shall be minimized through implementation of control measures and removed at the conclusion of each workday using street sweepers.

Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of development within the Specific Plan is required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings) which requires residential interior/exterior flat coatings to be less than or equal to 50 grams per liter VOC content and interior/exterior non-flat coatings to be less than or equal to 100 grams per liter VOC content.

4.1.3 Methodology and Assumptions

4.1.3.1 Air Emissions Modeling
Air emissions from mobile, area, and energy sources were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod was developed by the South Coast Air Management District (SCAQMD) with the input of several air quality management and pollution control districts. CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (electricity and natural gas used in space heating, ventilation, and

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-12 August 2022
cooling; lighting; and plug-in appliances), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions are estimated based on land use information input to the model by the user.

In the first module, the user defines the specific land uses that will occur at the project site. The user also selects the appropriate land use setting (urban or rural), operational year, location, climate zone, and utility provider. The input land uses, size features, and population are used throughout CalEEMod in determining default variables and calculations in each of the subsequent modules. The input land use information consists of land use subtypes (such as the residential subtypes of single-family residential and multi-family medium-rise residential) and their unit or square footage quantities. For the project, the residential buildings were modeled as high-rise apartments with 950 dwelling units (DUs). The ground-level, resident-serving commercial space allowed in the Specific Plan was included in the modeling, assuming a maximum of 15,000 square feet.

Subsequent modules include construction (including off-road vehicle emissions), mobile (on-road vehicle emissions), area sources (woodstoves, fireplaces, consumer products [cleansers, aerosols, solvents], landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings), water and wastewater, and solid waste.

Each module comprises multiple components including an associated mitigation module to account for further reductions in the reported baseline calculations. Other inputs include trip generation rates, trip lengths, vehicle fleet mix (percentage autos, medium truck, etc.), trip distribution (i.e., percent work to home, etc.), duration of construction phases, construction equipment usage, grading areas, season, and ambient temperature, as well as other parameters.

In various places the user can input additional information and/or override the default assumptions to account for project- or location-specific parameters. For this assessment, the default parameters were not changed unless otherwise noted. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix B to this EIR.

4.1.3.2 Construction Emissions
Based on a conservative estimate (earliest and highest intensity of construction activities) of the project construction timeline, Phase 1 construction is assumed to begin July 2021 and be completed by September 2023, for a total construction period of 26 months. Phase 2 construction is assumed to begin September 2023 and be completed by May 2025, for a total construction period of 20 months. The actual construction period may differ based on market conditions. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and installation of underground utilities, paving, construction of structures, and architectural coating (e.g., painting).

Improvement to the Alvarado Creek channel and Alvarado Road are assumed to occurring during the grading and utilities phase. During Phase 1 site preparation, an export of approximately 6,500 cubic yards of vegetation/soil and old concrete/asphalt is anticipated. During Phase 1 grading/utilities, an export of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil is anticipated for underground utilities and creek

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-13 August 2022
channel improvements. During Phase 2 site preparation, an export of approximately 3,060 cubic yards of vegetation/soil and old concrete/asphalt is anticipated. During Phase 2 grading/utilities, an export of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil for underground utilities is anticipated. All other Phase 1 and Phase 2 grading and excavation cut and fill activities are assumed to be balanced on site (e.g., no import or export of soil).

Construction would require heavy equipment during demolition, site preparation, grading/utilities, building construction, and paving. Construction equipment estimates are based on default values in CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2 with additional equipment added for excavation for underground utilities and creek channel improvements, based on assumptions used for similar projects. Table 4.1-6, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.

Table 4.1-6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Phase Equipment Number
Phase 1
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1
Excavators 2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Site Preparation Excavators 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 2
Rubber Tired Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Grading/Utilities Excavators 2
Graders 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Scrapers 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Paving Pavers 2
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
Building Construction Cranes 1
Forklifts 3
Generator Sets 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-14 August 2022
Table 4.1-6 (cont.)

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Phase Equipment Number
Phase 2
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1
Excavators 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Site Preparation Excavators 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Rubber Tired Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Grading/Utilities Excavators 1
Graders 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2
Pavers 1
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Building Construction Cranes 1
Forklifts 3
Generator Sets 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Source: HELIX 2020a
Construction activities would implement the standard construction BMPs for the control of fugitive dust in conformance with SDAPCD Rule 55. The emissions modeling accounts for watering all exposed surfaces a minimum of twice per day and enforcing a 15-mile per hour (mph) speed limit for all vehicles traveling on unpaved surfaces. The modeling also assumes conformance with SDAPCD Rule 67, limiting the VOC content of architectural coatings to 50 g/L for flat coating and 100 g/L for non-flat coatings.

4.1.3.3 Operational Emissions
Area Source Emissions
Area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance, and hearths. With the exception of the number and mix of fireplaces, emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values. It was assumed the project would not permit wood-burning stoves or wood-burning fireplaces, and the CalEEMod default value for the number of residential units with natural gas fireplaces was maintained.

Energy Emissions
Development within the project would use electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling. Natural gas and electricity would be supplied by San Diego Gas and Electric. Direct emissions from the burning of natural

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-15 August 2022
gas may result from furnaces, hot water heaters, and kitchen appliances. Electricity generation typically entails the combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which is then transmitted to end users. A building’s electricity use is thus associated with the off-site or indirect emission of GHGs at the source of electricity generation (power plant) and is not included in this analysis.

Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the trip generation rate from the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), the project would generate 5,415 average daily trips and the existing land use generates 668 average daily trips for a net increase of 4,747 average daily trips. The TIA also analyzed vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and determined that each trip would have an average distance of 4.83 miles (Kimley Horn 2020).

4.1.3.4 Sensitive Receptors
Because the project would site new sensitive receptors near a high-volume roadway (I-8), a health risk assessment (HRA) was completed to estimate to potential risks to future residents for exposure to DPM from I-8. The HRA was completed following OEHHA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015).

Estimation of Emissions
Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter. Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that all PM10 emissions from diesel-powered vehicle exhaust emissions are DPM. Emissions factors from diesel vehicles and the fleet mix typical of traffic on San Diego County roadways was estimated using the CARB EMFAC2017 online database. Emissions were estimated for the earliest anticipated first full year of Phase 1 operation, 2024. The peak-hour traffic volume on I-8 near the project site (from 70th Street to Fletcher Parkway) was estimated from Caltrans 2018 traffic counts (Caltrans 2018). Anticipated increases in traffic between 2018 and 2024 were extrapolated from data in the SANDAG Traffic Forecast Information Center (SANDAG 2020). All traffic was assumed to be traveling at the posted speed limit for I-8 (55 mph for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and 65 mph for all other vehicles). This speed scenario is conservative (higher emissions)–an examination of truck emissions from data in EMFAC2017 indicated that, between 5 mph and 55 mph, the highest emissions per mile traveled occur at 55 mph. The complete calculation sheets are included in Appendix B to this EIR.

Dispersion Modeling
Localized concentrations of pollutants were modeled using the Lakes AERMOD View, Version 9.8.3. The Lakes program utilizes the USEPA’s AERMOD gaussian air dispersion model. Emissions from vehicles traveling on I-8 (diesel exhaust only) were modeled as four volume line sources from 70th Street to Fletcher Parkway, using the USEPA haul road modeling parameter recommendations. Each volume source included two travel-lanes of the 8-lane section of I-8. All heavy- and medium duty-duty trucks were assumed to be traveling exclusively in the outer two (right-hand) lanes in each travel direction. All other diesel vehicle traffic was assumed to be distributed equally across all travel lanes.

CARB provides pre-processed meteorological data suitable for use with AERMOD. The available data set most representative of conditions in the project vicinity was from the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport station, approximately seven miles northwest of the project site. The Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport data set includes five years of data collected from 2009 to 2013. Urban dispersion

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-16 August 2022
coefficients were selected in the model to reflect the developed nature of the project site and the region downwind (east).

United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) files with a 10-meter resolution covering an area approximately one mile around the project site were used in the model to cover the analysis area. Terrain data was imported to the model using AERMAP (a terrain preprocessing program for AERMOD).

The DPM emissions were modeled as variable emissions by hour-of-day with each hour set as a fraction of the peak hour emissions based on studies of hourly traffic volume distribution typical of San Diego freeways. The Lakes AERMOD View output reports (which include all modeling parameters selected) are included in Appendix B to this EIR.

Risk Determination
Discrete receptors were placed in the model at estimated representative locations of residential unit balconies facing the freeway for each occupied floor of the buildings within the project (starting at the second floor for Building 1, and at the fourth floor four Buildings 2, 3, and 4). The height of the receptors was set to the estimated floor elevations for each building plus four feet, representing the average breathing height for a standing individual.

Health risks resulting from localized concentration of DPM were estimated using the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT), Version 19121.

The plot files of localized concentrations from AERMOD were imported into the ADMRT model to determine health risks. The model conservatively assumes that residents would be standing and breathing on the apartment balconies every day between 17 and 21 hours per day (depending on the age group, starting with fetuses in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy) for 30 years. The OEHHA derived intake rate percentile method was selected. The output of the dispersion modeling provides unitized ground level concentrations of the modeled constituent in micrograms per cubic meter for the maximum one-hour and the average over the five-year period of the meteorological data. An inventory of maximum hourly and average annual emissions for each source of TACs was entered in the ADMRT program. The ADMRT combines the emissions inventory, the ground level concentration plots from AERMOD, and pollutant-specific risk factors to determine the health risks at each receptor point identified in the model. The ADMRT output files are included in Appendix B to this EIR.

4.1.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant air quality impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

2. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

3. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-17 August 2022

4. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

4.1.5 Impact Analysis

4.1.5.1 Air Quality Plans
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for ozone. In addition, the SDAPCD relies on the SIP, which includes the SDAPCD’s plans and control measures for attaining the ozone NAAQS. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. Mobile sources are regulated by the CalEPA and CARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the RAQS and SIP.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including projected growth in the County, and mobile, area, and all other source emissions in order to project future emissions and determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB’s mobile source emission projections and SANDAG’s growth projections are based on population, employment and transportation trends, and land use plans developed by the local governments. Accordingly, projects that propose development that is consistent with the population and employment growth anticipated by these land use plans would be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that results in growth greater than that anticipated in the adopted land use plans and SANDAG’s growth projections upon which the RAQS is based, the project may conflict with the RAQS and SIP and could have a potentially significant impact on air quality. This situation would warrant further analysis to determine if the project and the surrounding projects would exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS for the specific subregional area.

Implementation of the project would result in a change in the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site from “Light Industrial” and “Regional Serving Commercial” to a specific plan overlay that would allow higher density mixed use multi-family housing and commercial land uses within the design form guidelines of the Specific Plan. Relative to the current General Plan, the proposed project would result in an overall increase in the capacity for multi-family residential units in the City. Based on the CalEEMod default values provided in the AQTR, the default population density for high-rise multifamily apartments for San Diego County would be 2.86 persons per dwelling unit (DU) and the project could increase the City’s population by approximately 2,717 residents. Therefore, implementation of the project would potentially result in an increase of emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM greater than what is accounted for in the RAQS as a result. Even though the project would result in a potential increase in the City’s population, the project would be consistent with General Plan policy LU-3.1.7 (City 2012a): “Encourage mixed-use transit-oriented development near public transportation facilities; new construction should be compact in form to take advantage of these transit-rich locations.” and General Plan objective CS-3.1: “Facilitate a reduction of automobile dependency in favor of affordable alternative, sustainable modes of travel.”
The project is within 0.5 mile of the 70th Street Trolley Station, which serves the MTS Green Line Trolley.

Due the project’s proposed higher density multi-family housing and proximity to a major transit stop,

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-18 August 2022
the project would be considered TOD. TOD is a key component of SANDAG’s Regional Plan to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and reduce GHG emissions (SANDAG 2015). Residents would be able to access other areas of the City and region via trolley and bus service at the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. This would help to reduce the average VMT for the average commuter, which would have the effect of reducing pollutant emissions from personal vehicle trips for project employees and visitors.

Another measurement tool used to determine consistency with the RAQS is to determine how a project would accommodate the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of VMT compared to regional averages, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project would be consistent with the RAQS. The TIA analyzed the project’s VMT per capita and compared it to the San Diego region.

The regional VMT per capita is 15.3 miles and the project VMT per capita would be 13.5 miles, based primarily on proximity to the transit station (Kimley Horn 2020). Therefore, without consideration of other measures, the project would have a VMT estimate that is 88 percent of the regional average. The TIA also includes estimated VMT reductions that would further reduce the project’s VMT, including an employer transit pass subsidy, transit-oriented development, parking pricing, pedestrian facility improvements, and bike facility improvements. Implementation of TOD alone would further reduce VMT by 5.2 percent, bringing the project’s VMT below 85 percent of the regional average. Although the project would increase population density over what was considered in the RAQS, it would result in VMT per capita that would be below the region-wide average, which would overall reduce vehicular air pollutant emissions consistent with regional goals such as SANDAG’s Regional Plan, SB 743, and the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.5.2 Air Quality Standards
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The project would generate criteria pollutants in the short-term during construction and the long-term during operation. To determine whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project’s emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD as presented in Table 4.1-7, Screening-Level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-19 August 2022
Table 4.1-7

SCREENING-LEVEL THRESHOLDS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Pollutant Total Emissions
Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 250
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 137
Operational Emissions Pounds per
Hour
Pounds per
Day
Tons per
Year
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) --- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) --- 55 10
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 25 250 40
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Lead and Lead Compounds --- 3.2 0.6
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) --- 137 15
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Excess Cancer Risk
1 in 1 million
10 in 1 million
with T-BACT
Non-Cancer Hazard 1.0
Source: SDAPCD 2016; SCAQMD 2015
T-BACT = Toxics-Best Available Control Technology
Construction Emissions
As discussed in Section 4.1.3.2, the project’s construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The results of the modeling of the project’s construction emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors for Phases 1 and 2 are shown in Table 4.1-8, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SDAPCD thresholds.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-20 August 2022
Table 4.1-8

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Phase
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
VOC
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
NOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
CO
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
SOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM10
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM2.5
Phase 1
Demolition 1.9 19.0 14.7 <0.1 1.3 1.9
Site Preparation 3.2 36.0 18.9 <0.1 7.4 4.5
Grading/Utilities 4.3 46.5 31.4 0.1 6.1 3.5
Paving 1.3 11.2 14.9 <0.1 0.7 0.6
Building Construction 4.8 33.0 37.2 0.1 7.8 2.7
Architectural Coatings 23.4 1.5 2.7 <0.1 0.4 0.2
Phase 1 Maximum Daily
Emissions1, 2 28.2 46.5 39.9 0.1 8.2 4.5
Phase 2
Demolition 1.1 10.0 8.2 <0.1 0.6 0.5
Site Preparation 1.1 12.0 8.4 <0.1 3.4 2.0
Grading/Utilities 1.8 18.2 15.2 <0.1 3.8 2.3
Paving 0.9 8.3 12.6 <0.1 0.6 0.4
Building Construction 2.7 19.0 24.0 0.1 3.6 1.4
Architectural Coatings 15.9 1.3 2.6 <0.1 0.4 0.2
Phase 2 Maximum Daily
Emissions1, 2 18.6 20.3 26.6 <0.1 4.0 2.3
SDAPCD Screening-Level
Thresholds 137 250 550 250 100 55
Exceed Screening-Level
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2020a 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2 The maximum daily emissions of some pollutants would be the sum of Building Construction and Architectural Coatings which would occur concurrently for both Phases.

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
As shown in Table 4.1-8, the project’s temporary Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD’s screening-level thresholds. Therefore, the project’s construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project’s construction activities would not, therefore, conflict with the NAAQS or CAAQS, or result in adverse human health effects. Construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
The project’s operational emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model, as described in Section 4.1.3. Since the long-term operation of the Phase 1 would occur concurrently with the temporary construction activities for the Phase 2, the maximum daily emissions during construction of

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-21 August 2022
the project would be the aggregate of the Phase 1 operational emissions plus the Phase 2 construction emissions, and minus the existing land use emissions. The net total emissions from Phase 1 operation and Phase 2 construction, minus the existing land use emissions, are shown in Table 4.1-9, Phase 1 Operational and Phase 2 Construction Concurrent Emissions.

Table 4.1-9
PHASE 1 OPERATIONAL AND PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION CONCURRENT EMISSIONS Source Category
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
VOC
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
NOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
CO
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
SOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM10
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM2.5
Phase 1
Area 17.8 6.5 55.8 <0.1 0.8 0.8
Energy 0.1 1.2 0.5 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Mobile 4.3 16.3 43.7 0.1 13.8 3.8
Phase 1 Operational
Subtotal1 22.3 24.0 100.1 0.2 14.7 4.6
Phase 2 Construction
(from Table 4.1-8) 18.6 20.3 26.6 <0.1 4.0 2.3
Less Existing Phase 1
Land Use
(from Table 4.1-4)
(3.4) (3.4) (14.9) (<0.1) (1.9) (0.6)
Net Maximum Daily
Emissions 37.5 40.9 111.8 0.2 16.8 6.3
SDAPCD Screening-Level
Thresholds 137 250 550 250 100 55
Exceed Screening-Level
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2020a 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
The final total maximum daily operation emissions, after completion of construction for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, is shown in Table 4.1-10, Net Total Operational Emissions.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-22 August 2022
Table 4.1-10

NET TOTAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Category
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
VOC
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
NOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
CO
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
SOX
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM10
Pollutant
Emissions
(pounds
per day)
PM2.5
Phase 2
Area 8.3 3.1 26.4 <0.1 0.4 0.4
Energy <0.1 0.6 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 1.8 7.2 18.6 <0.1 6.5 1.8
Phase 2 Operational Subtotal1 10.2 10.9 45.2 <0.1 7.0 2.2 Phase 1 Operational Subtotal
(from Table 4.1-9) 22.3 24.0 100.1 0.2 14.7 4.6
Less Existing Phase 1 Land Use
(from Table 4.1-4) (3.4) (3.4) (14.9) (<0.1) (1.9) (0.6) Less Existing Phase 2 Land Use
(from Table 4.1-4) (1.3) (1.1) (5.4) (<0.1) (0.7) (0.2) Net Maximum Daily
Emissions 27.8 30.3 125.0 0.2 19.1 6.0
SDAPCD Screening-Level
Thresholds 137 250 550 250 100 55
Exceed Screening-Level
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2020a 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
As shown in Tables 4.1-9 and 4.1-10, all the project’s maximum daily emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors for concurrent Phase 1 operation and Phase 2 construction, and for the final total operation would be below the SDAPCD’s screening-level thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational maximum daily emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Long-term operation of the project would not, therefore, conflict with the NAAQS or CAAQS, or result in adverse human health effects. Operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.5.3 Sensitive Receptors
Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Implementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on-site generators, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate the TAC DPM. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-23 August 2022
the construction period. During some equipment-intensive phases such as grading, construction-related emissions would be higher than other less equipment-intensive phases such as hangar construction.

Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015). Considering this information, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations throughout the project site, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

Therefore, air quality impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to DPM would be less than significant.

Construction Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Emissions
Asbestos dust and lead are known carcinogens classified as TACs by CARB. Both may be found in buildings constructed prior to 1979 when lead was used in lead-based paints (LBP) and asbestos was used as a component of building materials such as walls, ceilings, insulation, or fireproofing. Demolition of existing structures erected prior to 1979 could result in the disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and LBP.

The project site contains six existing buildings, all constructed between 1954 and 1959, that would be demolished. Due to the age of these buildings, the potential exists for them to contain ACM and/or LBP.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, a pre-construction ACM and LBP survey would be conducted to determine if these materials are present in the existing on-site buildings. If present, compliance with the existing regulations described below would avoid exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to these TACs.

Airborne asbestos is regulated in accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos regulations. Federal and state regulations prohibit emissions of asbestos from demolition or construction activities. Following identification of friable ACM, federal and state Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require that asbestos trained, and certified abatement personnel perform asbestos abatement and that all ACM removed from on-site structures be hauled to a licensed receiving facility and disposed of under proper manifest by a transportation company certified to handle asbestos. In accordance with the SDAPCD Rule 1206, Asbestos Removal, Renovation, and Demolition, prior to commencement of demolition operations and prior to submitting the notifications required by Section (e) of Rule 1206, a facility survey shall be performed to determine the presence or absence of ACM, regardless of the age of the facility (SDAPCD 2017). USEPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) requires that firms

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-24 August 2022
performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb LBP in structures built before 1978 have their firm certified by USEPA (or an authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by USEPA-approved training providers, and follow lead-safe work practices. These regulations specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers or lead dust and require notice to federal and/or local government agencies prior to beginning demolition or renovation that could disturb ACM. Therefore, compliance with established regulations would ensure that potential air quality impacts associated with ACM and LBP during project demolition activities would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution in excess of the NAAQS concentration limit that is typically caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways. Transport of the criteria pollutant CO is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with high volume intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours.

Neither the City nor the SDAPCD have adopted screening methods for CO hotspots. Therefore, the screening methods of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) are used for this analysis because the SMAQMD jurisdiction is a metropolitan area in an interior valley with greater potential for inversion layers and increased CO concentrations than for the project area, resulting in a more conservative analysis. The SMAQMD states that a project would result in a less than significant impact to local CO concentrations if it meets all of the below criteria (SMAQMD 2016):
• The affected intersection carries less than 31,600 vehicles per hour; • The project does not contribute traffic to a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, urban street canyon, below-grade roadway, or other location where horizontal or vertical mixing of air would be substantially limited; and
• The affected intersection, which includes a mix of vehicle types, is not anticipated to be substantially different from the County average, as identified by EMFAC or CalEEMod models.

The project would not contribute traffic to a location where horizontal or vertical mixing of air would be substantially limited. All intersections affected by the project would include a mix of vehicle types that are not anticipated to be substantially different from the County average fleet mix, as identified in CalEEMod. According to the TIA, the busiest project-affected intersection would be the intersection of Fletcher Parkway and Baltimore Drive which would carry approximately 4,300 vehicles (including project trips) during the peak hour (Kimley Horn 2020). This would be far below the screening level of 31,600 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the project’s contribution to future traffic would not result in CO hotspots. Air quality impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to CO hotspots would be less than significant.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-25 August 2022
On-site Sensitive Receptors
The incremental excess cancer risk is an estimate of the chance a person exposed to a specific source of a TAC may have of developing cancer from that exposure beyond the individual’s risk of developing cancer from existing background levels of TACs in the ambient air. For context, the average cancer risk from TACs in the ambient air for an individual living in an urban area of California is 830 in 1 million (CARB 2015). Cancer risk estimates do not mean, and should not be interpreted to mean, that a person will develop cancer from estimated exposures to toxic air pollutants. The potential health risks to future project residents from exposure to DPM was modeled, as described in Section 4.1.3.4. The resulting highest predicted incremental increased cancer risk for each residential floor of the project buildings is shown in Table, 4.1-11, Project Residential Increased Incremental Cancer Risk from DPM.

Table 4.1-11

PROJECT RESIDENTIAL INCREASED INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK FROM DPM Building
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 2
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 3
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 4
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 5
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 6
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 7
Risk by
Residential
Floor
(chances
per million)
Floor 8
Building 1 6.2 3.5 1.9 1.1 0.7 * *
Building 2 * * 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4
Building 3 * * 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4
Building 4 * * 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5
Source: HELIX 2020a
DPM = diesel particulate matter
* = no residences facing the freeway on the floor
The highest estimated incremental increase in cancer risk to future project residents from DPM emissions on I-8 would be 6.2 in 1 million, measured on the apartment balconies facing I-8 on the second floor of Building 1. This increase in risk would be below the SDAPCD threshold of 10 in 1 million.

The estimated risk assumes an individual standing and breathing on the apartment balcony every day between 17 and 21 hours per day for 30 years. The risk estimate does not account for future reductions of DPM emissions as more stringent CARB and USEPA diesel engine emissions standards take effect and older vehicles are retired. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of on-site sensitive receptors (i.e., future project residents) to substantial concentrations of DPM. Therefore, air quality impacts related to exposure of on-site sensitive receptors to DPM would be less than significant.

4.1.5.4 Odors
Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project may produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings. The odor of these emissions may be objectionable to some; however, emissions would be temporary, intermittent, and would disperse rapidly and therefore, would not affect a substantial number of people.

Furthermore, odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction.

4.1 Air Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.1-26 August 2022
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations (SCAQMD 1993).

The project, involving a multi-family residential development, would not include any of these uses nor are there any of these land uses in the project vicinity. In addition, the project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 51, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.6 Mitigation Measures

4.1.6.1 Air Quality Plans
No significant air quality impacts related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.1.6.2 Air Quality Standards
No significant air quality impacts related to air quality standards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.1.6.3 Sensitive Receptors
No significant air quality impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.1.6.4 Odors
No significant air quality impacts related to emissions of objectionable odors would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.1.7 Significance Determination
The significance of air quality impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.1-12, Significance Determination Summary of Air Quality Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant air quality impacts. Impacts related to air quality plans, air quality standards, sensitive receptors, and odors would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.1-12

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Air Quality Plans Less than significant None required Less than significant Air Quality Standards Less than significant None required Less than significant Sensitive Receptors Less than significant None required Less than significant Odors Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-1 August 2022

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section of the EIR evaluates anticipated impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project. It is based on a Biological Resources Report prepared for the project (RECON Environmental, Inc. [RECON] 2019), which is included as Appendix C of this EIR.

4.2.1 Existing Conditions
A biological survey was conducted on January 23, 2018 to map the extent of vegetation communities and land cover types; perform a general botanical and zoological species survey, assess the presence of suitable habitat for sensitive plant and animal species; and determine the presence of jurisdictional areas (RECON 2019). The biological survey covered the approximately 12.36-acre project site and immediately adjacent off-site areas along Alvarado Creek and the Alvarado Road site frontage, totaling approximately 13.66 acres that is collectively referred to as the “biological survey area.” The biological survey area is located within a developed urban area that includes a recreational vehicle resort facility, the channelized Alvarado Creek, and Alvarado Road. Topography is relatively level at approximately 400 feet AMSL.

4.2.1.1 Soils
The biological survey area includes three soil types mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including Riverwash; Redding-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent; and Redding-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent. Riverwash soils occur in intermittent stream channels and typically consist of sand, gravel, or cobble. Riverwash soil is rapidly permeable and excessively drained and may be devoid of vegetation in many places or may contain sparse patches of shrubs and forbs. Redding-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent and Redding-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent occur on marine terraces, at elevations of 200 to 500 feet. The soils in these areas have been altered through cut and fill operations and leveling for building sites. Prior to cut and fill operations and leveling, the slope was 2 to 9 percent or 9 to 30 percent, respectively.

4.2.1.2 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types
The project site supports two vegetation communities and three land cover types, including freshwater marsh, willow woodland, disturbed land, urban/developed land, and concrete channel. The approximate acreages of these vegetation communities and land cover types are presented in Table 4.2-1, Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Within the Biological Survey Area, and their locations within the biological survey area are shown on (Figure 4.2-1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the Biological Survey Area).

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-2 August 2022
Table 4.2-1

EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES WITHIN

THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA
Vegetation Community/
Land Cover Type
Existing On Site
(acres)
Existing Off Site
(acres)
Survey Area Total
(acres)
Freshwater Marsh 0.70 0.43 1.13
Willow Woodland 0.28 0.47 0.75
Disturbed Land 0.23 0.03 0.26
Urban/Developed Land 10.87 0.36 11.23
Concrete Channel 0.28 0.01 0.29
TOTAL 12.36 1.30 13.66
Source: RECON 2019
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh consists of perennial emergent monocots such as cattails and bulrush that typically form a closed canopy that is 13 to 16 feet tall. Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow, such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs.

Freshwater marsh communities, as with all wetland habitats, have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization.

Within the biological survey area, freshwater marsh occurs along Alvarado Creek (Figure 4.2-1) and is dominated by broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), southern bulrush (Scirpus californica), and Olney’s three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus). Other plant species found in the freshwater marsh at this site include saplings of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius), and scattered native trees of red willow (Salix laevigata) and Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii). Freshwater marsh covers approximately 0.70 acre of the project site, and approximately 0.43 acre adjacent to the project site.

Willow Woodland
Willow woodland is a riparian community dominated by broad-leaved winter-deciduous willow trees.

This vegetation community is typically found along major drainages but also occurs in smaller drainages.

The density of the willows typically prevents a dense understory of smaller plants from growing. The representative species typically grows in loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. This community requires repeated flooding to prevent succession to community dominated by sycamores and/or cottonwoods.

Within the biological survey area, willow woodland occurs along Alvarado Creek on the southwestern portion of the site (Figure 4.2-1). The willow woodland on-site is composed of patches of trees and saplings of black willow, red willow, and shrubs of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). The understory of the willow woodland includes the same freshwater marsh species previously noted above. Scattered non-native species found in this section of the creek include castor bean (Ricinus communis), Mexican fan palm, and Brazilian peppertree. Willow woodland covers approximately 0.28 acre of the project site, and approximately 0.47 acre adjacent to the site.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-3 August 2022
Disturbed Land
Disturbed land is present within the biological survey area mostly south of and east of Alvarado Creek in the eastern portion of the biological survey area. The disturbed habitat occurs on a slope below a concrete wall associated with the MTS Trolley Line down to Alvarado Creek and along the eastern bank of the creek (Figure 4.2-1). The slope supports a cover of ivy (Hedera helix), olive tree (Olea europa), fennel (Foeniculum vulagre), and non-native grasses. A small area of disturbed land also occurs in the western portion of the biological survey area on the south side of Alvarado Creek. Disturbed land covers approximately 0.23 acre of the project site, and approximately 0.03 acre adjacent to the project site.

Urban/Developed Land
The majority of the site consists of a developed recreational vehicle facility with ornamental vegetation consisting of maintained non-native landscaped areas (Figure 4.2-1). These ornamental plants included Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta), Brazilian peppertree, Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), American century plant (Agave americana), and bird of paradise flower. Urban/developed land covers approximately 10.87 acres of the project site, and approximately 0.36 acre adjacent to the site.

Concrete Channel
Portions of Alvarado Creek at the box culvert crossing at Alvarado Road and the box culvert inlet near the trolley station at the west end of the project site have been covered in concrete to control erosion and stabilize the creek bed (Figure 4.2-1). In addition, portions of the northern bank of the creek are also covered in concrete to stabilize the bank from erosive forces. Concrete channel covers approximately

0.28 acre of the project site, and approximately 0.01 acre adjacent to the project site.

4.2.1.3 Observed Plant Species
A total of 41 plant species were observed within the biological survey area during the biological survey.

Given the highly developed nature of the project site, most of the plants observed (29 of the 41) were non-native species. The 12 native species were mostly associated with freshwater marsh or willow woodland habitat, such as Olney’s three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), southern bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolio), mule fat – seep willow (Baccharis salicifolia), water cress (Nasturtium offininale), Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis). A complete list of observed wildlife species is contained in Attachment 1 of the Biological Resources Report (RECON 2019), which is included as Appendix C of this EIR.

4.2.1.4 Observed Wildlife Species
A total of 18 wildlife species were detected within the biological survey area during the biological survey through either observation or vocalization. Although Alvarado Creek passes through the project site, the number and variety of wildlife species detected during the survey was generally low. This is likely due to the noise from the nearby I-8 and MTS Trolley Line bordering the site. The species detected during the field survey included invertebrates such as honey bee (Apis mellifera) and mourning cloak (Nymphalis antiopa); one species of amphibian, the southern California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus); and birds such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus elegans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura marginella), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans semiatra), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus melanurus), northern mockingbird (Mimus

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-4 August 2022
polyglottos polyglottos), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria hesperophilus), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus frontalis). A complete list of observed wildlife species is contained in Attachment 2 of the Biological Resources Report (RECON 2019), which is included as Appendix C of this EIR.

4.2.1.5 Sensitive Biological Resources
The Biological Resources Report classified species as candidate, sensitive, or of special concern if they met at least one of the following three criteria:
• Species covered under the City of La Mesa Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP);
• Species listed by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered, or were proposed for listing; or
• Species listed on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B (considered endangered throughout their range) or CRPR 2 (considered endangered in California but are more common in other regions) of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Noteworthy plant species are considered those on the CRPR 3 (more information about the plant’s distribution and rarity needed) and CRPR 4 (plants of limited distribution).

Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Two sensitive vegetation communities occur within the survey area, including freshwater marsh and willow woodland. As stated in Section 4.2.1.1, freshwater marsh covers approximately 0.70 acre of the project site and approximately 0.43 acre adjacent to the project site, and willow woodland covers approximately 0.28 acre of the project site and approximately 0.47 acre adjacent to the site. The locations of these two sensitive vegetation communities are shown on Figure 4.2-1.

Sensitive Plant Species
Based on a search of CNPS and California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records, there are nine sensitive plant species that may have the potential to occur in the project vicinity as identified in Table 4.2-2, Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Biological Survey Area. As shown in Table 4.2-2, none are expected to occur within the survey area. No sensitive plant species were observed during the biological survey.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-5 August 2022
Table 4.2-2

SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA Species
Listing Status
Federal
State
CNPS
City
Lifeform and
Bloom Period Potential to Occur/Preferred Habitat/Range San Diego viguiera
(Bahaiopsis laciniata)
--
--

4.3 --
Perennial shrub
February to June
Not Expected. Occurs in coastal sage scrub at elevations below 2,500 feet AMSL. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

San Diego marsh elder
(Iva hayesiana)
--
--
2B.2
--
Perennial herb
April to September
Not Expected. Occurs in marshes and swamps, playas, and riparian areas at elevations below 1,700 feet AMSL.

Riparian habitat is present along Alvarado Creek, but
species was not observed.

San Diego barrel cactus
(Ferocactus viridescens)
--
--
2B.1
--
Perennial stem
succulent
May to June
Not Expected. Occurs in chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools at
elevations below 1,500 feet AMSL. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Nuttall’s scrub oak
(Quercus dumosa)
--
--
1B.1
--
Perennial
evergreen shrub
February to March
Not Expected. Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal chaparral, coastal sage scrub at elevations below 1,300 feet AMSL. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

San Diego thorn-mint
(Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
FT
CE
1B.1
MSCP Covered NE
Annual herb
April to June
Not Expected. Occurs in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands at elevations below 3,200 feet AMSL. Suitable habitat is not present on site.
willowy manardella
(Monardella viminea)
FE
CE
1B.1
MSCP Covered
Perennial herb
June to August
Not Expected. Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub,
riparian woodlands, and sandy seasonal dry washes at
elevations between 160 and 740 feet AMSL. Suitable
habitat is not present on site.

California adolphia
(Adolphia californica)
--
--
2B.1
--
Perennial
deciduous shrub
December to May
Not Expected. Occurs in Diegan coastal sage scrub and
chaparral at elevations between 100 and 2,500 feet AMSL.

Suitable habitat is not present on site.
southwestern spiny rush
(Juncus acutus ssp.
leopoldii)
--
--

4.2 NE
Perennial herb
May to June
Not Expected. Occurs in coastal dunes, meadows and
seeps, coastal salt marsh, and riparian areas at elevations below 3,000 feet AMSL. Riparian habitat is present along Alvarado Creek but species was not observed.

San Diego goldenstar
(Bloomeria clevelandii)
--
--
1B.1
MSCP Covered
Perennial herb
May
Not Expected. Occurs in chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools at
elevations between 170 and 15000 feet AMSL. Suitable
habitat is not present on site.

Source: RECON 2019
Federal Status Codes: FE = federally listed endangered; FT = federally listed threatened State Status Codes: CE = state listed endangered
California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rankings:
1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 2B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 3 = Review list: Plants about which more information is needed. Some eligible for state listing. 4 = Watch list: plants of limited distribution. Needs monitoring for changes in population status. Few (if any) eligible for state listing. .1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat. .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known.

City Status Codes: MSCP Covered = Multiple Species Conservation Program covered species; NE = narrow endemic.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-6 August 2022
Sensitive Wildlife Species
No sensitive wildlife species were detected within the survey area during the biological survey. Based on a search of CNPS and CNDDB records, there is potential for 17 sensitive wildlife species to occur in the project vicinity as identified in Table 4.2-3, Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Biological Survey Area. No sensitive wildlife species were observed during the biological survey.

Table 4.2-3

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA Species
Listing Sensitivity
Federal
State
City
Habitat and
Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
--
CSC
--
Not Expected. Inhabits vernal pools, floodplains, and alkali flats within areas of open vegetation. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Arroyo toad
(Anaxyrus californicus)
FE
CSC
MSCP Covered
Not Expected. Inhabits open streamside and sand/gravel flats and breeds in quiet, shallow pools along stream edges. Suitable habitat is not present on site because Alvarado Creek is channelized.

Reptiles
Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma balinvillii)
--
CSC
MSCP Covered
Not Expected. Inhabits chaparral and coastal sage scrub with fine, loose soil. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Belding’s orange-throated
whiptail
(Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi)
--
CSC
MSCP Covered
Not Expected. Inhabits chaparral and coastal sage scrub with coarse, sandy soils and scattered brush. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii)
--
CSC
--
Not Expected. Inhabits permanent freshwater streams with rocky bottoms in mesic areas. Suitable habitat is not present on site because Alvarado Creek is channelized and does not have a rocky bottom.

Red diamond rattlesnake
(Crotalus ruber)
--
CSC
--
Not Expected. Inhabits desert scrub, riparian, coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, grassland, and agricultural fields. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Birds
Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)
--
WL
MSCP Covered
Moderate Potential. Inhabits mature forest, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves, and parks and residential areas.

Mature trees within Alvarado Creek and the existing RV facility could potentially be used for nesting by this species.

White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)
--
CFP
--
Not Expected. Nests in riparian woodland, oaks, and sycamores and forages in open, grassy areas. Riparian habitat occurs on site, but species was not observed and not expected to nest or forage on site due to the narrow riparian habitat and proximity to urban development.

Southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
FE
CE
MSCP Covered
Not Expected. Nesting restricted to willow thickets and also occupies other woodlands. Willow woodland occurs on site, but species was not observed and not expected to occur due to the minimal amount of willow riparian habitat on site.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-7 August 2022
Table 4.2-3 (cont.)

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA Species
Listing Sensitivity
Federal
State
City
Habitat and
Potential to Occur
Birds (cont.)
Least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FT
CSC
MSCP Covered
Low Potential. Inhabits willow riparian woodlands. Willow woodland occurs on site, but species was not observed and not expected to occur due to the minimal amount of willow
woodland habitat on site.

Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica)
FT
CSC
MSCP Covered
Not Expected. Inhabits coastal sage scrub and maritime
succulent scrub. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Yellow-breasted chat
(Icteria virens auricollis)
--
CSC
--
Low Potential. Inhabits dense riparian woodland. Willow woodland occurs on site, but species was not observed and has low potential to occur because the willow woodland habitat is likely not dense enough for breeding.

Mammals
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis californicus)
--
CSC
--
Moderate Potential. Inhabits woodlands, rocky habitat, arid and semi-arid lowlands, cliffs crevices, buildings and tree hollows.

Species was not observed on site but has a moderate potential to forage on site given the presence of woodlands and trees.

Pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops femorosaccus)
--
CSC
--
Moderate Potential. Normally roosts in crevice in rocks, slopes, and cliffs. Species was not observed on site but has a moderate potential to forage on site.

Big free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops macrotis)
--
CSC
--
Moderate Potential. Inhabits rugged, rocky terrain and roosts in crevices, buildings, caves, and tree holes. Species was not observed on site but has a moderate potential to forage on site given the presence of woodlands and trees.

Northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax fallax)
--
CSC
--
Low Potential. Occurs in San Diego County west of mountains in sparse, disturbed coastal sage scrub or grasslands with sandy soils. Species was not observed on site but has a moderate potential to forage on site.

San Diego desert woodrat
(Neotoma lepida intermedia)
--
CSC
--
Not Expected. Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Suitable habitat is not present on site.

Source: RECON 2019
Federal Status Codes: FE = federally listed endangered; FT = federally listed threatened State Status Codes: CE = state listed endangered; CSC = state species of special concern; WL = watch list City Status Codes: MSCP Covered = Multiple Species Conservation Program covered species

4.2.1.6 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
Wildlife corridors are defined as linear spaces of undeveloped native habitats that connect both large and small natural open space and provide opportunities for wildlife movement. Wildlife corridors contribute to species’ sustainability by providing access to adjacent habitat areas for dispersal, foraging, and mating. Linkages between wildlife corridors connect isolated blocks of habitat and allow movement or dispersal species over a large scale and the consequent mixing of genes between populations (i.e., gene pool diversity).

Alvarado Creek, portions of which are located within the biological survey area, functions as a local wildlife corridor. The creek flows east to west, entering into the site in the northeast portion of the site

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-8 August 2022
and draining underground at the western end of the project site. The remainder of the site does not serve as a wildlife corridor. Although a portion of the site may function for local wildlife movement, the site is not a significant regional wildlife corridor as it does not connect large blocks of habitat or provide a throughway for wildlife species into major areas of off-site habitats.

Wildlife nursery sites are specific areas that contain the resources necessary for adult wildlife species to breed, give birth, and rear their young. Nursery sites support the constituent habitat elements required by juvenile wildlife species to grow and develop, including adequate space, refuge, food, and physical conditions in the environment. No known or potential wildlife nursery sites occur on, or in the immediate vicinity, of the biological survey area.

4.2.1.7 Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters
A wetland delineation was conducted within the biological survey area to map the extent of federal and state jurisdictional waters (RECON 2019). USACE federal waters of the U.S. and CDFW and RWQCB waters of the State occur within the biological survey area associated with Alvarado Creek (Table 4.2-4, Existing Federal and State Jurisdictional Areas within the Biological Survey Area). Federal and state wetlands include areas of the creek vegetated with either freshwater marsh or willow woodland habitat.

Federal non-wetland waters include the concrete lined portions of the creek bottom. State streambed and bank include the concrete-lined portions of the creek bottom, as well as the concrete-lined and earthen banks. The location of federal waters is shown on Figure 4.2-2, Federal Jurisdictional Areas, and the location of state waters is shown on Figure 4.2-3, State Jurisdictional Areas.

Table 4.2-4

EXISTING FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS WITHIN THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA Jurisdiction On Site
(acres)
Off Site
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Federal Waters of the U.S. (USACE)
Wetland 0.98 0.90 1.88
Non-wetland Waters 0.09 0 0.09
TOTAL Federal 1.07 0.90 1.97
Waters of the State (RWQCB, CDFW)
Wetland 0.98 0.90 1.88
Streambed/Bank 0.37 0.02 0.39
TOTAL State 1.35 0.92 2.27
Source: RECON 2019
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting

4.2.2.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
Administered by the USFWS, FESA provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that impact endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the FESA. Section 9(a) of the FESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-9 August 2022
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns.

The USFWS designates critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land that are considered necessary for endangered or threatened species to recover. The ultimate goal is to restore healthy populations of listed species within their native habitats so they can be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. Once an area is designated as critical habitat pursuant to the FESA, federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. No critical habitat has been designated within the City.

Sections 7 and 10(a) of the FESA regulate actions that could impact endangered or threatened species.

Section 7 generally describes a process when federal actions may adversely affect listed species.

Section 10(a) generally describes a process for non-federal agencies; including preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan and issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory bird species that are native to the U.S. or its territories are protected under the MBTA, as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (Federal Register Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA protects migratory birds and their breeding activities from deliberate take. Enforced in the U.S. by the USFWS, the MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered a “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbance of or near active bird (including raptor) nests during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to July 30).

Clean Water Act
The CWA is legislation that regulates water quality standards and impacts (fills and discharges) to surface waters, including wetlands. The USACE regulates impacts to waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1344; U.S.C. 1413; and Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 323). A federal CWA Section 404 Permit would be required for a project to place fill in waters of the United States. Projects impacting waters of the United States could be permitted on an individual basis or be covered under one of several approved nationwide permits. Individual permits are assessed individually based on the type of action, amount of fill, etc. Individual permits typically require substantial time (often longer than one year) to review and approve, while nationwide permits are pre-approved if a project meets appropriate conditions. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification administered by the RWQCB must be issued prior to issuance of a Section 404 Permit.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-10 August 2022

4.2.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
Similar to FESA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1970 provides protection to species considered threatened or endangered by the State of California (California Fish and Game Commission [CFGC], Section 2050 et seq.). The CESA recognizes the importance of threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats, and prohibits the taking of any endangered, threatened, or rare plant and/or animal species unless specifically permitted for education or management purposes.

The CESA established that it is state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance state endangered species and their habitats. Under state law, plant and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the CFGC. The CESA authorizes that private entities may “take” plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with CESA (CFGC Code Section 2080.1[a]). For state-only listed species, CFGC Section 2081 authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for State listed threatened and endangered species if specific criteria are met, including (1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and (4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.

California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game (CFG) Code regulates the protection of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, in addition to natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. Pursuant to CFG Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors, including owls, and their active nests are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA. These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds would not be disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW and/or USFWS.

Under sections 1600 et. seq. of the CFG Code, CDFW regulates activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife and requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for such activities. The CDFW issues a Streambed Alteration Agreement with any necessary mitigation to ensure protection of the State’s fish and wildlife resources. The CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses.

Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program is a cooperative effort to protect habitats and species. It began under the State's NCCP Act of 1991, legislation broader in its orientation and objectives than the CESA or FESA. These laws are designed to identify and protect individual species that have already declined significantly in number. The NCCP Act of 1991 and the associated Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines (1993b), Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-11 August 2022
NCCP Conservation Guidelines (1993a), and NCCP General Process Guidelines (1998) have been superseded by the NCCP Act of 2003.

The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level while accommodating compatible land use. The program seeks to anticipate and prevent the controversies and gridlock caused by species listings by focusing on the long-term stability of wildlife and plant communities and including key interests in the process.

This voluntary program allows the State to enter into planning agreements with landowners, local governments, and other stakeholders to prepare plans that identify the most important areas for a threatened or endangered species, and the areas that may be less important. These NCCP plans may become the basis for a State permit to take threatened and endangered species in exchange for conserving their habitat. The CDFW and USFWS worked to combine the NCCP program with the federal HCP process to provide take permits for State and federal listed species. Under the NCCP, local governments, such as the City, can take the lead in developing these NCCP plans and become the recipients of State and federal take permits. The City has developed such a plan, as discussed below under Section 4.2.2.3.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7) was created to facilitate the coordination of water quality regulations throughout the state of California. The Act established the SWRCB as the statewide authority and authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review, and revise policies for all waters of California, including both surface and ground waters. Section 13170 of the California Water Code also authorizes the SWRCB to adopt water quality control plans on its own initiative. Additionally, the Act established nine separate RWQCBs to oversee smaller regional areas within California and directs the RWQCBs to develop regional Basin Plans. The San Diego Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance the quality of water resources in the San Diego region to benefit present and future generations (RWQCB 1994). The purpose of the plan is to designate beneficial uses of the region’s surface and ground waters, designate water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those uses and establish an implementation plan to achieve the objectives.

4.2.2.3 Local
City of La Mesa General Plan
According to the City of La Mesa General Plan, approximately 98 percent of the City’s land has been developed with residential and commercial uses, so La Mesa does not have an abundance of biological resources such as significant natural habitat areas or bodies of water (City 2012a). As such, the General Plan includes a Conservation and Sustainability Element that focuses on supporting regional resource conservation efforts and sustainability as the City continues to grow. One of the main goals within the Conservation and Sustainability Element that is applicable the proposed project is Goal CS-1, which encourages the sustainable use of land and natural resources. Goal CS-1 is further supported through Objective CS-1.1, which is the intention of creating compact, mixed-use projects with amenities to enhance the City’s natural setting. This is maintained by Policy CS-1.1.2 to promote the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and related Design Guidelines to encourage infill along the City’s transit corridors, and Policy CS-1.1.3 to preserve existing trees where appropriate and require planting of new trees in conjunction with public and private developments.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-12 August 2022
The Recreation and Open Space Element also contains goals, objectives, and policies aimed at conservation of natural areas and biological habitat. Goal RO-2 is to be a city that values areas of native vegetation for open space and biological habitat. The supporting Objective RO-2.1 is to preserve and restore open space and natural features consistent with the City’s HCP. Furthermore, Policy RO-2.1.1 promotes the preservation, where feasible, of the most sensitive open space and natural lands and the inclusion of landscape features that are compatible with adjacent natural vegetation.

City of La Mesa Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan
The City of La Mesa Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (City 1998) is a local habitat conservation plan prepared pursuant to the NCCP Act to supplement the San Diego MSCP Subregional Plan. The MSCP is intended to provide for the protection and conservation of the region’s sensitive plant and wildlife species habitat while continuing to allow appropriate levels of development and growth. As a planning tool, the MSCP protects the region’s biodiversity while reducing conflicts between development interests and natural resources. The project site is located within the boundaries of the City’s Subarea Plan but is not located within a designated preserve area.

4.2.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The analysis of potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources is based on the Biological Resources Report prepared for the project (RECON 2019), which is included as Appendix C of this EIR. The Biological Resources Report includes a biological survey of the project site and some adjacent off-site areas along Alvarado Creek to identify vegetation communities and land cover types within the biological survey area and map them on an aerial photograph of the site. The survey also included notation plant species observed in the area, as well as wildlife species found either directly or detected from calls, tracks, scat, nests, or other signs.

A jurisdictional delineation was also conducted on the project site and some adjacent off-site areas along Alvarado Creek in accordance with USACE guidelines. Prior to conducting the delineation, aerial imagery was examined to aid in the determination of potential federal and state jurisdictional areas within the biological survey area. During the delineation, the biological survey area was surveyed to determine the presence of jurisdictional indicators, including wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. Soil test pits (four sampling points) were conducted within potential wetland areas and in, or adjacent to, the inferred boundary between wetland and upland vegetation (based on changes in topography, hydrology, and composition of the vegetation).

Regulatory databases were reviewed to identify the potential for listed, sensitive, or noteworthy species to occur on the site, which was based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for the species, and species occurrence records from the CNDDB, USFWS, and other sites in the vicinity of the biological survey area.

4.2.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact associated with biological resources would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-13 August 2022

2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?

3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

6. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

4.2.5 Impact Analysis

4.2.5.1 Sensitive Species
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Sensitive Plant Species
As stated above in Section 4.2.1.5, none of the nine sensitive plant species with the potential to occur in the biological survey area are expected to occur within the survey area and no sensitive plant species were observed during the biological site survey. Most of the project site is developed or disturbed, and the vegetation that exists is composed primarily of non-native plant species. Some native plant species are present along Alvarado Creek and in disturbed areas, but none are considered sensitive. Given the level of disturbance, no sensitive plant species would be expected to occur within the survey area.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant species as a result of the proposed project.

Sensitive Wildlife Species
As stated above in Section 4.2.1.5, none of the 17 sensitive wildlife species with the potential to occur in the biological survey area were observed during the site survey. Although riparian habitat is present within the survey area along Alvarado Creek, there is zero to low potential for the site to support sensitive bird species that inhabit riparian areas (e.g., least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat, southwestern willow flycatcher, and white-tailed kite) due to the level of disturbance within this reach of the creek and lack of vegetation within the understory.

As identified in Table 4.2-3, there is moderate potential for the Cooper’s hawk to nest on site due to the presence of existing tall trees within the site and Alvarado Creek, although this species was not observed or detected during the biological site survey. The removal of vegetation during the general bird nesting

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-14 August 2022
season (February 1 through September 15) could result in direct or indirect impacts to this sensitive raptor species. Direct impacts could occur if vegetation is removed that supports an active nest, while indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration adjacent to an active nest, which could result in a nest failure. Therefore, construction of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to the Cooper’s hawk.

There is also moderate potential for three sensitive bat species to forage on the site, including the western mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, and big free-tailed bat (see Table 4.2-3). While known to occur within two miles of the project site, none of these species were observed or detected during the biological site survey and the site does not contain suitable bat habitat preferences or features (i.e., caves, crevices, cliffs) to support roosts of these species. Thus, while foraging may potentially occur in the project area, no direct impacts to these bat species would occur as a result of the proposed project.

The developed nature of the site and other disturbance factors generally limit the potential for other sensitive wildlife species (including those identified in Table 4.2-3) from occurring within the biological survey area. The site is developed and mostly devoid of habitat that could support sensitive wildlife species. Other limiting factors include the developed nature of surrounding areas and exposure to regular disturbances, including lighting, noise, and vehicle activity. Furthermore, the project site is regionally isolated and lacks direct connectivity or reasonable proximity to larger stands of native habitat. Given these factors, no other sensitive wildlife species are anticipated to occur within the biological survey area.

Nesting Birds
Implementation of the proposed project would involve the removal of on-site vegetation which has the potential to serve as habitat for nesting or migratory birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code.

The removal of vegetation during the general bird nesting seasons (January 15 through August 31) could result in both direct and indirect impacts to nesting or migratory birds. Direct impacts could occur if vegetation is removed that supports an active nest, while indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration adjacent to an active nest, which could result in a nest failure. These impacts to nesting and migratory birds would violate the MBTA and CFG Code. Therefore, construction of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to nesting and migratory birds.

4.2.5.2 Sensitive Habitats
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
As stated above in Section 4.2.1.2, there are two sensitive vegetation communities that are located on the project site, including freshwater marsh and willow woodland. Other vegetation communities/land cover types within the biological study area include disturbed land, developed, and concrete channel, none of which are considered sensitive vegetation communities. As shown in Table 4.2-1, 1.13 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.75 acre of willow woodland are present in the biological survey area.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in permanent impacts to these two sensitive vegetation communities; however, temporary impacts to both freshwater marsh and willow woodland

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-15 August 2022
would occur, as presented in Table 4.2-5, Summary of Temporary Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Figure 4.2-4, Project Impacts to Biological Resources.

Table 4.2-5

SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Sensitive Vegetation
Community
On Site Impacts
(acres)
Off Site Impacts
(acres)
Total Impacts
(acres)
Freshwater Marsh 0.03 0.01 0.04
Willow Woodland 0.01 0 0.01
TOTAL 0.04 0.01 0.05
Source: RECON 2019
A total of 0.04 acre of freshwater marsh and 0.01 acre of willow woodland would be temporarily impacted as a result of the project, resulting in a total of 0.05 acre of impacts to sensitive vegetation communities. Temporary impacts to freshwater marsh and willow woodland would be considered significant, and therefore mitigation is required.

4.2.5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? As shown in Table 4.2-4, there are 1.97 total acres of federal jurisdictional waters and 2.27 total acres of state jurisdictional waters within the biological survey area. The federal and state wetlands include areas of Alvarado Creek that are vegetated with either freshwater marsh or willow woodland. Federal non-wetland waters include the concrete lined portions along the bottom of the creek, while state streambed and bank included these concrete lined portions of the creek bottom in addition to the concrete lined and earthen banks (refer to Figures 4.2-2 and 4.2-3).

Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent and temporary impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters. The impacts would occur along the banks of Alvarado Creek are a result of the removal and replacement of retaining walls and concrete banks and within the creek bed due to the removal/relocation of utility lines. Permanent and temporary impacts resulting from project implementation are presented in Tables 4.2-6, Summary of Permanent Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters, and 4.2-7, Summary of Temporary Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters. The locations of anticipated project impacts are shown on Figure 4.2-5, Project Impacts to Federal Jurisdictional Waters, and Figure 4.2-6, Project Impacts to State Jurisdictional Waters.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-16 August 2022
Table 4.2-6

SUMMARY OF PERMANENT IMPACTS TO FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL WATERS Jurisdiction
On Site
Impacts1
(acres)
Off Site
Impacts1
(acres)
Total
Impacts1
(acres)
Federal Waters of the U.S. (USACE)
Wetland 0.03 0 0.03
Non-wetland Water 0 0 0
TOTAL Federal 0.03 0 0.03
Waters of the State (RWQCB, CDFW)
Wetland 0.03 0 0.03
Streambed/Bank 0.06 0 0.06
TOTAL State 0.09 0 0.09
Source: RECON 2019
Acreages are rounded to the nearest 0.01.

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
1 Impacts to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State are not additive; impacts to federal wetlands coincide with state wetlands.

Table 4.2-7

SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL WATERS Jurisdiction
On-Site
Impacts1
(acres)
Off-Site
Impacts1
(acres)
Total
Impacts1
(acres)
Federal Waters of the U.S. (USACE)
Wetland 0.04 0.01 0.05
Non-wetland Water 0 0.01 0.01
TOTAL Federal 0.04 0.02 0.06
Waters of the State (RWQCB, CDFW)
Wetland 0.04 0.01 0.05
Streambed/Bank 0.16 0.02 0.18
TOTAL State 0.20 0.03 0.23
Source: RECON 2019
Acreages are rounded to the nearest 0.01.

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
1 Impacts to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State are not additive; impacts to federal wetlands coincide with state wetlands.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.03 acre of federal jurisdictional waters and 0.09 acre of state jurisdictional waters. Temporary impacts would occur to

0.06 acre of federal waters and 0.23 acre of state waters. Permanent and temporary impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters are considered significant and would require compensatory mitigation, as well as a federal CWA Section 404 Permit from the USACE, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/RWQCB, and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-17 August 2022

4.2.5.4 Wildlife Movement
Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As stated in Section 4.2.1.6, Alvarado Creek functions as a local wildlife corridor. The creek flows into the site from the east and drains underground at the western end of the project site and then continues off site to west. However, this portion of Alvarado Creek is not considered a regional wildlife corridor because although it may function for some local wildlife movement, the project site and surrounding areas are developed such that this reach of the creek does not serve as a habitat linkage to off-site wildlife corridors or large native habitat areas. Additionally, the La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP does not identify the project site as a core biological resource or linkage area (City 1998). Any work conducted within and adjacent to Alvarado Creek as part of the proposed project would be temporary, and the proposed improvements to Alvarado Creek would improve the function and value of habitat within this reach through native revegetation and increased hydrologic flow, which would benefit wildlife movement. Consequently, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement within this local wildlife corridor. As stated in Section 4.2.1.6, no known or potential wildlife nursery sites occur on, or in the immediate vicinity, of the project site. As a result, the project would not impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. Impacts related to wildlife corridors and nursery sites as a result of the project would be less than significant.

4.2.5.5 Biological Resource Protection Policies and Ordinances Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Construction of the proposed project would require the removal of existing vegetation on the site, including numerous non-native/ornamental trees and landscaping within the developed portion of the site, as well as some native vegetation within and along Alvarado Creek (as discussed in Section 4.2.5.2).

The proposed project would not conflict with applicable goals, objectives, and policies within the General Plan Conservation and Sustainability Element or Recreation and Open Space Element, including Goal CS-1 (the sustainable use of natural resources and land), Policy CS-1.1.3 (preserve existing trees where appropriate and require planting of new trees in conjunction with public and private developments), Goal RO-2 (a City that values areas of native vegetation for their open space and biological habitat), Objective RO-2.1 (preserve and restore open space and natural features consistent with the City’s HCP), and Policy RO-2.1.1 (the most sensitive open space and natural lands shall be preserved where feasible and include landscape features that are compatible with adjacent natural vegetation). The project would minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and Alvarado Creek would be revegetated with native riparian vegetation, which would provide for improved biological habitat and resources. New trees, ornamental landscaping, and native riparian vegetation would be planted as part of the comprehensive landscape plan for the project. New trees would be planted in accordance with the City’s Tree Policy Manual, which provides a reference for existing guidelines, policies, and standards for the planting, care, preservation, maintenance, and replacement of trees (City 2013a). In addition, project implementation would not impact the City’s habitat preserve area as identified in the La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-18 August 2022

4.2.5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is located within the boundaries of the City of La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP, but not within or in the vicinity of areas designated as Multi-Habitat Planning Area, Core Biological Resource Areas and Linkages, or other preserve lands as identified in the Subarea HCP/NCCP. Although the project site is located within a highly developed area of the City, there are trees throughout the site and riparian habitat along Alvarado Creek that could potentially support sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk within trees and least Bell’s vireo within riparian habitat) protected by the Subarea Plan (refer to Table 4.2-3).

Implementation of mitigation is identified in Section 4.2.6.1 that would avoid significant project impacts to these MCSP-covered species. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the adopted La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

4.2.6 Mitigation Measures

4.2.6.1 Sensitive Species
Potentially significant impacts to sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds could result from the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance.

BIO-1 Biological Resource Protection
I. Prior to Construction
a. Biologist Verification – The owner/permittee shall designate a project biologist (Qualified Biologist) to be retained to implement a project biological monitoring program.
b. Pre-construction Meeting – The Qualified Biologist shall attend the pre-construction meeting(s), discuss the project’s biological monitoring program. c. Avian Protection Requirements – To avoid direct impacts to avian species identified as listed, candidate, sensitive, or special status, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting bird species on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The owner/permittee shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to the City of La Mesa for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting activities for any sensitive bird or MBTA-protected species are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with applicable state and federal law (i.e., appropriate follow up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-19 August 2022
avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of La Mesa for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. d. Resource Delineation – Prior to construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or equivalent along the limits of disturbance adjacent to sensitive biological habitats.
e. Education – Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall meet with the owner/permittee or designee and the construction crew and conduct an on-site educational session regarding the need to avoid impacts outside of the approved construction area and to protect sensitive biological resources.

II. During Construction
a. Monitoring – All construction (including access/staging areas) shall be restricted to areas previously identified, proposed for development/staging, or previously disturbed as shown on the approved grading plans. The Qualified Biologist shall monitor construction activities as needed, to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas, or cause other similar damage, and that the work plan has been amended to accommodate any sensitive species located during the preconstruction surveys. b. Subsequent Resource Identification – The Qualified Biologist shall note/act to prevent any new disturbances to habitat, flora, and/or fauna on-site (e.g., flag plant specimens for avoidance during access, etc.). If active nests or other previously unknown sensitive resources are detected, all project activities that directly impact the resource shall be delayed until species-specific local, state or federal regulations have been determined and applied by the Qualified Biologist.

4.2.6.2 Sensitive Habitats
Implementation of the proposed project would result in temporary impacts to two sensitive vegetation communities, including freshwater marsh and willow woodland. These impacts are considered significant and require compensatory mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance.

BIO-2 Sensitive Habitat Replacement. Temporary impacts to 0.04 acre of freshwater marsh and

0.01 acre of willow woodland shall be mitigated within the biological survey area at a minimum 1:1 ratio through revegetation and establishment within Alvarado Creek. Temporarily impacted areas of Alvarado Creek shall be revegetated, and new wetlands shall be established in areas of the widened creek bed. The revegetation and establishment areas shall be planted with wetland native species, including broad-leaved cattail, Olney’s three-square bulrush, and southern bulrush and shall be maintained and monitored for an initial period of five years in accordance with a project Habitat Restoration Plan and regulatory permit conditions.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-20 August 2022

4.2.6.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Implementation of the proposed project would result in temporary and permanent impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters and wetlands, as identified in Tables 4.2-6 and 4.2-7. Implementation of the mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance.

BIO-3 Wetland Habitat Replacement. Temporary and permanent impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters (i.e., wetlands, non-wetland/streambed/bank and associated sensitive vegetation communities) shall be mitigated within the biological survey area through wetland revegetation and establishment within Alvarado Creek, as identified in Table 4.2-8, Summary of Proposed Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation. Temporarily impacted areas of Alvarado Creek shall be revegetated, and new wetlands shall be established in areas of the widened creek bed. The revegetation and establishment areas shall be planted with wetland native species, including broad-leaved cattail, Olney’s three-square bulrush, and southern bulrush and shall be maintained and monitored for an initial period of five years in accordance with a project Habitat Restoration Plan and regulatory permit conditions. Following project construction, Alvarado Creek, within the limits of the project site, shall be preserved and enhanced as part of the longterm maintenance and management of Alvarado Creek in accordance with an approved Management Plan. Long-term maintenance task shall include removal of non-native species and selective thinning of woody vegetation.

Table 4.2-8

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MITIGATION
Wetland Mitigation Type
On Site
Mitigation
(acres)
Off Site
Mitigation
(acres)
Total
Mitigation
(acres)
Wetland Revegetation 0.12 0.02 0.14
Wetland Establishment 0.21 0.01 0.22
TOTAL 0.33 0.03 0.36
Source: RECON 2019

4.2.6.4 Wildlife Movement
No significant impacts related to wildlife corridors, linkages, and nursery sites would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.2.6.5 Biological Resource Protection Policies and Ordinances No significant impacts related to biological resources protection policies or ordinances would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.2.6.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts to MSCP-covered species (Cooper’s hawk within trees and least Bell’s vireo within riparian habitat). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 above would avoid significant project impacts to these MCSP-covered species.

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-21 August 2022

4.2.7 Significance Determination
The significance of biological resources impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.2-9, Significance Determination Summary of Biological Resources Impacts. Impacts related to wildlife movement, and biological resources protection policies and ordinances would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Implementation of the proposed project, however, would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and habitat conservation plans. With implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Table 4.2-9

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Sensitive Species Potentially significant BIO-1 Less than significant Sensitive Habitats Potentially significant BIO-2 Less than significant Jurisdictional Waters and
Wetlands
Potentially significant BIO-3 Less than significant
Wildlife Movement Less than significant None required Less than significant Biological Resource Protection
Policies and Ordinances
Less than significant None required Less than significant Habitat Conservation Plans Potentially significant BIO-1 Less than significant

4.2 Biological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.2-22 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-1_Vegetation.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
within the Biological Survey Area
Figure 4.2-1
Source: RECON 2019
FIGURE 4
Biological Resources

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig4biotec.mxd 6/7/2019 bma
0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type [
Freshwater Marsh
Willow Woodland
Concrete Channel
Disturbed Land
Developed
Property Boundary

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-2_Federal_JD.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Federal Jurisdictional Areas
Figure 4.2-2
FIGURE 5a Source: RECON 2019
Location of Federal Waters of the U.S.

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig5abiotec.mxd 6/7/2019 bma 0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Waters of the US (ACOE) [
Non-wetland Waters
Wetland Waters
Property Boundary

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-3_State_JD.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK State Jurisdictional Areas
Figure 4.2-3
Source: RECON 2019
FIGURE 5b
Location of Waters of the State

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig5bbiotec.mxd 6/7/2019 bma 0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Waters of the State (RWQCB, CDFW) [
Streambed
Riparian
Bank
Property Boundary

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-4_Biological_Impacts.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Project Impacts to Biological Resources
Figure 4.2-4
Source: RECON 2019
FIGURE 6
Location of Impacts to Biological Resources

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig6biotec2019.mxd 6/6/2019 bma 0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type [
Freshwater Marsh
Willow Woodland
Concrete Channel
Disturbed Land
Developed
Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Property Boundary
Project Plan Lines

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-5_Federal_JD_Impacts.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Project Impacts to Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Figure 4.2-5
Source: RECON 2019
FIGURE 7a
Location of Impacts to Federal Waters of the U.S.

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig7abiotec2019.mxd 6/6/2019 bma 0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Waters of the US (ACOE) [
Non-wetland Waters
Wetland Waters
Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Property Boundary

Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.2-6_State_JD_Impacts.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Project Impacts to State Jurisdictional Waters
Figure 4.2-6
Source: RECON 2019
FIGURE 7b
Location of Impacts toWaters of the State

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8

COLONY DR

MARYLAND AVE

PARKWAY DR
73RD ST

ALVARADO RD

SARANAC AVE

SARANAC ST

GRABLE ST
ALLEY

COMANCHE DR

GUESSMAN AVE

KEENEY ST
§¨¦8
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig7bbiotec2019.mxd 6/6/2019 bma 0 Feet 150
Image source: NearMaps (flown February 2019)
Waters of the State (RWQCB, CDFW) [
Streambed
Riparian
Bank
Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Property Boundary

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-1 August 2022

4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this section of the EIR addresses the potential impacts associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources that could occur due to implementation of the proposed project. The following discussion includes information based on the Cultural Resources Survey for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan (RECON 2018a), which is included as Appendix D of this EIR, and the Historic Resource Analysis Report (Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC [Urbana] 2019), which is included as Appendix E of this EIR.

4.3.1 Existing Conditions

4.3.1.1 Cultural Resource Definitions
Archaeological resources include prehistoric and historic locations or sites where human actions have resulted in detectable changes to the area. This can include changes in the soil, as well as the presence of physical cultural remains. Archaeological resources can have a surface component, a subsurface component, or both. Historic archaeological resources are those originating after European contact.

These resources may include subsurface features such as wells, cisterns, or privies. Other historic archaeological remains include artifact concentrations, building foundations, or remnants of structures.

Historical resources are physical features, both natural and constructed, that reflect past human existence and are of historical, archaeological, scientific, educational, cultural, architectural, aesthetic, or traditional significance. These resources may include such physical objects and features as archaeological sites and artifacts, buildings, groups of buildings, structures, districts, street furniture, signs, cultural properties, and landscapes. Historical resources in the San Diego region span a timeframe of at least the last 10,000 years and include both the prehistoric and historic periods.

A Tribal Cultural Resource is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of cultural value to a Tribe, and is either on or eligible for listing in the national, state, or a local historic register, or the lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a Tribal Cultural Resource (PRC Section 21074).

4.3.1.2 Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Period
In San Diego County, the prehistoric cultural sequence generally comprises three distinct periods: the Paleoindian, the Archaic, and the Late Prehistoric. The Paleoindian dates the earliest of the three periods, between about 11,500 and 8,500 years ago, and is most closely associated with the San Dieguito Complex. This period placed a large emphasis on hunting and is characterized by scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf-shaped points.

The Paleoindian Period is then followed by the Archaic Period, lasting from approximately 8,500 to 1,500 years ago. The Archaic Period is associated with the La Jollan Complex along the coast and the Pauma Complex inland. The period largely focused on a generalized economy and emphasized seed resources, small game, and shellfish. Items emerging during the Archaic Period include rough cobblebased choppers and scrapers, slab and basin metates, and large side-notched and Elko series projectile points.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-2 August 2022
The Archaic Period is followed by the Late Prehistoric, beginning approximately 1,500 years ago. This period is associated with the Cuyamaca Complex and is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, economic, and technological systems. Items associated with the Cuyamaca Complex include steatite arrowshaft straighteners, steatite pendants, steatite comales (heating stones), Tizon Brownware pottery, ceramic figurines reminiscent of Hohokam styles, ceramic “Yuman bow pipes”, ceramic rattles, miniature pottery, various cobble-based tools (e.g., scrapers, choppers, hammerstones), bone awls, manos and metates, mortars and pestles, and Desert side-notched and Cottonwood Series projectile points.

Ethnohistory
The project area is located within the traditional territory of the Kumeyaay, also known as Ipai, Tipai, or Diegueño, who occupied the southern region of San Diego County. The Kumeyaay lived in semisedentary, politically autonomous villages or rancherias. Their settlement system typically consisted of two or more seasonal villages surrounded by temporary camps. The most basic social and economic unit was the patrilocal extended family. The Kumeyaay were largely focused on hunting and gathering, specifically of resources such as small game, acorns, grass seeds, and other plant resources. Items typically associated with the Kumeyaay include a shoulder-height bow for hunting, mortars and pestles, and flaked stone tools such as scrapers, choppers, flake-based cutting tools, and biface knives.

Additionally, the Kumeyaay made fine baskets using either coiled or twined construction, and both brown utility and decorated pottery using the paddle-and-anvil technique.

Historic Period
There are three general eras in California history: the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods.

The Spanish Period lasted from 1769 to 1821 and was characterized by European exploration and settlement. Settlement and development of Spanish colonies was incentivized by giving large land grants to prominent individuals as part of the rancho system. Military naval forces along with a religious contingent founded the San Diego Presidio, the pueblo of San Diego, and the San Diego Mission. As a result of the European settlement, Native American culture in the coastal strip of California rapidly deteriorated.

The Spanish Period was followed by the Mexican Period, which began when Mexico declared its independence from Spain in 1821. The Mexican Period is noted for secularizing the previously religious mission system and allowing for the vast expansion of the rancho system, which caused the southern California economy to become largely based on cattle ranching. The Mexican Period ended in 1848 when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2 of that year, concluding the Mexican-American War.

American governance began in 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding California to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican–American War, which marked the start of the American Period. A great influx of settlers to California and the San Diego region occurred during the American Period, resulting from several factors, including the discovery of gold in California, the end of the Civil War, the availability of free land through passage of the Homestead Act, and later, the importance of San Diego County as an agricultural area supported by roads, irrigation systems, and connecting railways. The increase in American and European populations quickly overwhelmed many of

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-3 August 2022
the Spanish and Mexican cultural traditions, and greatly increased the rate of population decline among Native American communities.

La Mesa History
La Mesa was originally part of the Rancho de la Mission San Diego de Alcala, consisting of 58,875 acres and extending from the Pueblo of San Diego to El Cajon in the east, Clairemont Mesa in the north, and National City in the south. The Rancho supported the mission until secularization in 1834 and was then placed under the administration of Joaquin Ortega the following year. In 1845, the lands were deeded to Don Santiago Arguello.

In 1868, Robert Allison purchased the land that now comprises La Mesa for the purpose of ranching. The discovery of gold in the eastern mountains (near what is now Julian), in addition to the construction of a flume to bring water down from the Cuyamaca Mountains, helped to foster the growth of La Mesa and caused a large boost to development in the area. The San Diego Flume Company formed in 1886 and raised capital by selling land along present-day El Cajon Boulevard between College Avenue and Garfield Street. Robert Allison also donated 100 one-acre lots in the La Mesa town site to the Flume Company for sale to raise money for the flume construction. In 1887, Robert Allison purchased construction bonds and granted a right-of-way to the San Diego, Cuyamaca, and Eastern Railroad Company. By 1890, service was available from Lakeside to San Diego, with a stop at the Allison Springs Station located in what would become the downtown La Mesa area.

La Mesa incorporated in 1912, and in the early 1900s, the economy of La Mesa expanded to include agriculture and citrus orchards with packing warehouses, health resorts, and a film production company named the American Film Manufacturing Company. At this time, University Avenue was the main road for traveling east and west between San Diego and La Mesa, and development was concentrated adjacent to it. During World War I, El Cajon Boulevard was constructed, and development shifted north along the El Cajon Boulevard corridor. As with the entire San Diego region, development in La Mesa slowed during the Great Depression but resurged during World War II and continued into the 1950s. To support the growing population, residential tracts, schools, and shopping centers were constructed.

Transportation expanded in the 1950s and 1960s as well, including the construction of SR 94, SR 125, Fletcher Parkway, and the expansion of US Highway 80. The Grossmont shopping center opened in 1961, which initially drew much business away from the downtown area, but this trend has reversed in subsequent years as new businesses have moved into the old downtown area.

4.3.1.3 History of the Project Site
The project site remained undeveloped until 1954 when Chris A. Cosgrove, a pioneer builder and developer in San Diego County, constructed a mobile home park called the La Mesan. The La Mesan initially included 118 spaces over approximately 7.7 acres and was expanded to include 49 additional spaces over approximately four acres in subsequent years. By 1958, the property included 167 spaces over approximately 11.86 acres and was later expanded to 181 spaces. The site reflected standard mobile home parks, which were initially created in the early 1930s to serve as short-term and highly mobile forms of housing, but quickly shifted into more permanent housing in the post-World War II era.

Mobile home parks created a sense of instant communities for people in the decades following World War II.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-4 August 2022
Between 1954 and 1959, the project site was developed with eight buildings comprising a restroom and laundry building, a two-story office building, a comfort station, a lounge and rumpus room building with a sky room, a proprietor’s residence, a utility building, a drafting office, and a lath house. Recreational facilities were also constructed, including a swimming pool with patio, shuffleboard and badminton courts, a fenced children’s playground, a private terrace, and barbeque. The La Mesan mobile home park incorporated all of the character-defining features of a post-World War II resort park: private paved roads; numerous mobile home spaces with concrete pads and hookups for electricity, gas, water, and sewage; a recreational Club House (with office and changing rooms); a manager’s residence; a laundry room; community bathroom facilities; a swimming pool; and landscaping. By 1990, the mobile home park was converted into an RV resort and all of the mobile homes were removed. The RV resort remains the current use of the site and contains six of the original eight buildings, the swimming pool, a spa, and 181 concrete slabs (for RV parking) arranged along 13 asphalt-covered streets.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting

4.3.2.1 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the framework that focused local, state, and national efforts with regards to the preservation of historic and archaeological resources.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) involves efforts to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, and assess effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. To help identify historic properties and provide community involvement, consulting parties are identified through coordination with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.

National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their significance at the local, state, or federal level. The NRHP is the official lists of sites, buildings, structures, districts, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Listing in the NRHP provides recognition that a property is historically significant to the nation, the state, or the community.

Properties listed (or potentially eligible for listing) in the NRHP must meet certain significance criteria and possess integrity of form, location, or setting. Barring exceptional circumstances, resources generally must be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing in the NRHP. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service. Nominations to the NRHP may come from the various State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, local governments, and from private individuals and organizations.

Criteria for listing in the NRHP are stated in 36 CFR 60.4. A resource may qualify for listing if there is quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and where the resource meets at least one of the following criteria:

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-5 August 2022
Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Eligible properties must meet at least one of the NRHP criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original historic fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. The fourth criterion is typically reserved for archaeological resources. These criteria have largely been incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15065.5) as well.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; U.S.C., Title 25, Sections 3001 et seq.) is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes.

4.3.2.2 State
California Register of Historic Resources
Similar to the NRHP, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies resources for planning purposes; determines eligibility of state historic grant funding; and provides certain protections under CEQA. State criteria are those listed in CEQA and used to determine whether an historic resource qualifies for the CRHR. A resource may be listed in the CRHR if it is significant at the federal, state, or local level under one or more of the following four criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States;
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the state or nation.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-6 August 2022
In addition to meeting one of the above criteria, a resource eligible for CRHR listing must retain integrity, meaning it must evoke the resource’s period of significance or, in the case of criterion 4, it may be disturbed but must retain enough intact and undisturbed deposits to make a meaningful data contribution to regional research issues.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides guidance on determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. The term “historical resources” is defined as a resource listed in or determined eligible for listing on the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey that meets certain requirements; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant. Archaeological resources are considered “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA.

A resource that is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historic resources, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey may nonetheless be historically significant for purposes of CEQA (Section 15064.5 and CEQA Statutes Section 21083.2).

A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is one that may have a significant effect on the environment. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR, or that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California NAGPRA (2001), like the federal act, ensures that Native American human remains and cultural items are treated with respect and dignity during all phases of the archaeological evaluation process in accordance with CEQA and any applicable local regulations.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 specifies protocol for the inadvertent discovery of human remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the County coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and has provided recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County coroner determines that the human remains are not subject to his or her authority and recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097
California PRC Section 5097 et seq., Native American Historic Resource Protection Act; Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on non-federal

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-7 August 2022
public lands. California PRC Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American Religion.” The code further states that:

No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine... except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require. County and city lands are exempt from this provision, expect for parklands larger than 100 acres.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) was passed on September 25, 2014, and applies to all projects that file a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR, on or after July 1, 2015. The bill requires that a lead agency begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project if that tribe has requested, in writing, to be kept informed of projects by the lead agency, prior to the determination of whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR will be prepared. The bill also specifies mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources.

AB 52 codified this consultation process within the CEQA statute (PRC Section 20174). It also defines tribal cultural resources as either of the following:
a. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
• Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Senate Bill 18
Native American involvement in the planning and development review process is addressed by several state laws. The most notable of the state laws is SB 18, which includes detailed requirements for local agencies to consult with identified California Native American tribes early in the planning and/or development process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans and specific plans.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-8 August 2022

4.3.2.3 Local
City of La Mesa General Plan
The Historic Preservation Element of the adopted General Plan (City 2012a) includes multiple policies and objectives relating to the project. Objective HP-1.1 is to broaden the awareness of the La Mesa Historic Preservation Program. This is supported by Policy HP-1.1.1, to share information between the City and preservation advocacy organizations, and Policy HP-1.1.2, to inform citizens and project applicants of preservation regulations as part of the development review process. Objective HP-1.2 is to update and maintain the La Mesa Historic Resources Inventory to identify the potential eligibility of properties built in the historic era. This is supported by Policy HP-1.2.1, to implement a phased Historical Resource Survey program to account for all locations in the City classified within the historic era, and Policy HP-1.2.2, to establish guidelines for identifying eligible properties in the Modern Period, extending from 1935 to 1975 in the City of La Mesa. The La Mesa Historic Resources Inventory designates local historic and cultural resources, and consists of the overall Historic Resources Inventory, the Potential Landmark Listing, and the Historic Landmark Register.

City of La Mesa Historic Preservation Ordinance
La Mesa Municipal Code Title 25, Historic Preservation, enacts the goals of the Historic Preservation Element of the City of La Mesa General Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission was created by Municipal Code Section 25.01.060, which also established their powers and responsibilities. The Historic Landmark and Historic District Designation Criteria are both identified in Municipal Code Section 25.03.010. The ordinance states that a cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a Historic Landmark or Historic District if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; Criterion B: It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; Criterion C: It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
Criterion D: It is representative of the notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect; Criterion E: It is identified with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City;
Criterion F: It embodies elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship;
Criterion G: It is an archeological or paleontological site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or
Criterion H: It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-9 August 2022
value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement.

The demolition of any designated Historic Landmark or any contributing structure within a designated Historic District is prohibited, with the exceptions of the provisions listed in Municipal Code Section 25.03.060, which requires City Council approval of a demolition permit based on the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission.

4.3.3 Methodology and Assumptions
A Cultural Resources Survey (RECON 2018a) and a Historical Resource Analysis Report (Urbana 2019) were prepared for the project, which are provided as Appendices D and E of this EIR. As part of the Cultural Resources Survey, site records searches were conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System, South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University.

Additionally, a field survey of the project area was conducted. The surveyed areas included the majority of the 12.36-acre project site and a 1.30-acre off-site impact area. The portion of the project within the Alvarado Creek channel was not walked but was visually inspected wherever possible from the edge of the channel. Landscaped and bare dirt areas in the developed portion of the property were inspected closely for any indication of cultural materials. Ground visibility in these areas varied considerably, with some grass-covered areas having no ground visibility, and areas between trees and bushes having excellent ground visibility.

The NAHC was contacted on July 11, 2017 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts, which were received on July 13, 2017. Letters were sent to tribal representatives identified by the City and the NAHC in September 2019 informing them of the proposed project and asking them of any knowledge or information about cultural resources they may have about the project area. One response was received by the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on October 2, 2019 indicating that Viejas has cultural ties to the project site. No consultation was requested, however, a Kumeyaay cultural monitor was requested to be present during ground disturbing construction activities.

The Historical Resource Analysis Report consisted of research and a field survey of historic-era buildings (i.e., those greater than 45 years old) on the project site. The research resources included United States census records; digitized copies of the San Diego Union; La Mesa City Directories; City of La Mesa building permits; San Diego County Assessor records, including the Grantor-Grantee Index and the Commercial-Industrial Building Record; La Mesa Historical Society archives; and historic aerial imagery on file at the San Diego History Center, HistoricAerials.com, and the University of California Santa Barbara Library. The field survey was conducted on August 15, 2019 and included both photographs of the property boundaries and notes on existing conditions, architectural features, and observed modifications of existing on-site historic-era buildings.

4.3.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-10 August 2022

2. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

3. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.3.5 Impact Analysis

4.3.5.1 Historical Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Based on the results of the records search, no historic archaeological resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the project site. One recorded historical resource (P-37-035910) is located within

0.5 mile of the project site, which is a pump station consisting of two small single-story buildings in a Spanish Eclectic architectural style that were constructed by the City of San Diego between 1941 and 1953. Implementation of the project would not impact this recorded resource.

During the field survey, no previously recorded historic resources were observed on or near the site.

However, the six existing on-site buildings were constructed in the 1950s as part of the original RV resort development, dating them at over 45 years old. As such, the buildings were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the CRHR and designation as a City of La Mesa Historic Landmark.

The Historical Resource Analysis Report (Urbana 2019) indicates that the existing buildings were constructed between 1954 and 1959 and that there were originally eight buildings, including a two-story office building, a lounge and rumpus room building, a proprietor’s residence, a drafting office, restroom and laundry building, a utility building, a comfort station, and a lath house. As shown in Table 4.3-1, Project Site Buildings, six of the original eight buildings are still currently on the site; the comfort station was not identified during the field survey and the lath house is no longer standing. Each of the six existing buildings are described below followed by a CRHR/La Mesa Historical Landmark eligibility analysis.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-11 August 2022
Table 4.3-1

PROJECT SITE BUILDINGS
Historic Name Common Name Year Built
Office Building Office and TV Room/Billiards Building 1954 Lounge and Rumpus Room Building Fitness Center Building 1954 Proprietor’s Residence Apartment Building 1954
Drafting Office Meeting Room Building 1958
Restroom and Laundry Building Restroom and Laundry Building 1954 Utility Building East Restroom and Laundry Building 1957 Comfort Station N/A1 1954
Lath House N/A2 1959
Source: Urbana 2019
1 Not identified during the field survey.
2 No longer standing.

N/A = Not Applicable
The Office and TV Room/Billiards Building, historically identified as the Office Building, has a very lowpitched side-gable roof with wide overhanging eaves, overhanging and cantilevered second-story walls, stucco-clad exterior walls, and composition shingle roofing. Fenestration includes metal-framed windows with wood sills, wood-framed windows, and wood-framed doors installed around the perimeter at both levels. Two open concrete staircases with metal railing are installed at the north and south exteriors. The building is set back from the street (Alvarado Road) and is west of the swimming pool. The ground floor breezeway, a distinctive element of the building, has been infilled. The painted or neon sign originally installed on the building’s roof is no longer present and has been replaced by a sign advertising “Sunland RV Resort San Diego.” Additionally, the original decorative masonry screen wall enclosing the pool area has been replaced by metal fencing.

The Fitness Center Building, historically identified as the Lounge and Rumpus Room Building, is a two-story building with a flat roof and wide overhanging eaves with a sweeping curve extending from the northeast corner to the southeast corner. Features include stucco wall surfaces, horizontal wood siding, smooth stucco with slightly protruding large squares on the first floor, a 2-foot by 18-foot glass bay on the second floor of the north elevation, and smooth flush wood-framed doors.

The Apartment Building, historically identified as the Proprietor’s Residence, is a compound plan, two-story building with a low-pitched side-gable roof, wide overhanging eaves, and solar panels.

Features include stucco wall surfaces, a bowed wall surface on the north elevation, metal framed windows, and wood framed doors. A wood-covered porch and a concrete staircase are present on the second floor of the west elevation, and five square wood posts and a concrete staircase are present on the east elevation.

The Meeting Room Building, historically identified as the Drafting Office, is south of the Office and TV Room/Billiards Building. The Meeting Room Building is a one-story building with a rectangular plan and angled walls on the northeast and southeast corners, a flat roof, and wide overhanging eaves. Features include stucco wall surfaces, metal-framed windows with wood molding, and wood-framed doors. Four large metal mailboxes are centered on the west elevation.

The Restroom and Laundry Building is located on the west portion of the property. This building is a one-story building with a rectangular plan and has a low-pitched front-gable roof, wide overhanging